HomeMy WebLinkAboutPB Minutes 1986-02-04 i 4
TOWN OF ITHACA PLANNING BOARD
FEBRUARY 4 , 1986
The Town of Ithaca Planning Board met in regular session on
Tuesday, February 4, 1986 , in Town Hall, 126 East Seneca Street,
Ithaca, New York, at 7 :30 p.m.
PRESENT: Chairman Montgomery May, Carolyn Grigorov, David Klein,
Virginia Langhans, James Baker, John C. Barney (Town
Attorney) , Lewis D. Cartee (Town Building Inspector) , Peter
M. Lovi (Town Planner) , Susan C. Beeners (Town Landscape
Architect) , Nancy M. Fuller (Secretary) .
ALSO PRESENT: Town Councilwoman Patricia Leary, Town Councilwoman
Shirley Raffensperger, Paul Jacobs, Isobelle Flight,
Edward Miccinati, William F. Albern, Robert S. Russler
Jr. , Ivar R. Jonson, Virginia Iacovelli, Paul
Iacovelli, Attorney Wesley E. McDermott, Fenwick T.
(Tim) Faulkner, Earl Stanley, Philip Proujansky, Marie
Cario, Barbara J. Bredbenner, Edgar E. Bredbenner Jr. ,
Douglas Armstrong, Charles Dalkert, Edna Clausen, Nell
Mondy, Bruce Turnbull, Joseph Multari, Albert George,
Paul Hartman, Craig Pease, Walter Lawson, Muhammad A.
Razzaq, Linda J. Louko, Anna K. Stuliglowa, Fred Yahn
(The Ithaca Journal) .
Chairman May declared the meeting duly opened at 7 :40 p.m. and
accepted for the record the Clerk ' s Affidavit of Posting and
Publication of the Notice of Public Hearings in Town Hall and the
Ithaca Journal on January 27, 1986 and January 30 , 1986 , respectively,
together with the Secretary' s Affidavit of Service by Mail of said
Notice upon the various neighbors of each of the properties under
discussion, upon the Clerk of the Town of Enfield, upon the Tompkins
County Commissioner of Planning, and upon each of the applicants
and/or agent, as appropriate, on January 30, 1986 .
STAFF REPORT - Peter M. Lovi
Air. Lovi stated that he would report later in the meeting.
REPORT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVE TO THE COUNTY PLANNING
BOARD - Carolyn Grigorov
Mrs. Grigorov reported on the December 11 , 1985 and the January
8 , 1986 meetings of the County Planning Board. Noting that each of
the Board members had received with his/her agenda a copy of the
Minutes of both these meetings, Mrs. Grigorov stated that the December
meeting of the County Planning Board was primarily devoted to a panel
discussion about communications and the media with handouts or
presentations from All-Mode Communications, Inc. , WVBR, American
Community Cablevision, U.S. Postal Service, WICB, Grapevine Press,
Inc. , The Ithaca Journal, NYNEX. Mrs. Grigorov noted that there was
Planning Board 2 February 4 , 1986
also discussion of the County space study.
Mrs . Grigorov stated that the January meeting was about the
Courts and was very interesting. Mrs. Grigorov noted that there will
be a series of reports to the County Planning Board, like this one on
the Courts, which is a new way of doing things , for example, at the
February meeting there will be a report on Solid Waste. Mrs. Grigorov
stated that, before these discussions take place, they go around to
each municipality and ask for an informal report. Mrs. Grigorov
stated that some representatives say a lot and some not too much.
Mrs. Grigorov requested that, if anyone has anything for her to
report, he or she should let her know.
Mrs . Grigorov reported that the Panel on Judicial. Activities in
Tompkins County was comprised of Judge Frederick Bryant, Supreme
Court, Judge Betty Friedlander, County, Family, and Surrogate Courts,
Judge William Barrett, County, Family, and Surrogate Courts , Benjamin
Bucko, County District Attorney , and Lois Humphrey, Director of
Probation. Mrs. Grigorov reported that there is a problem at the
Court House and that problem is space, adding that the City wants to
build a new Court House but the space would be adequate if the County
offices were out - - in addition to the Court personnel , the Court
House building now contains the County Administrator, the County
Attorney, the Board of Representatives, the County Clerk, and the
Budget Office, with the Old Court House containing the County
Personnel Office and the Sheriff's Department. Mrs . Grigorov
referenced the "litigation explosion" and described the various
problems involved with little rooms which are noisy.
Mrs. Grigorov reported that, after the main program, there were
reports from Frank Liguori and Harry Missirian with respect to Route
96 and the Hospital.
Mrs . Langhans stated that she saw in the December Minutes that
Mrs. Grigorov was elected Vice Chairman of the County Planning Board,
adding that that was very nice.
Chairman May thanked Mrs. Grigorov for her reports.
REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR -- Lewis D. Cartee
Chairman May noted that the Board members had received with their
agenda a copy of Mr. Cartee' s December 1985 and January 1986 Report of
Building Permits Issued. The Building Inspector's Report of Building
Permits Issued for the month of December 1985 indicates that 7 permits
were issued for a total of $125 ,300.00 in improvements, as compared
with December 1984 when 6 permits were issued for a total of
$57,890. 00 in improvements. The Building Inspector ' s Report of
Building Permits Issued for the month of January 1986 indicates that
12 permits were issued for a total of $84 ,787. 62 in improvements , as
compared with January 1985 when 5 permits were issued for a total of
$323,823. 67 in improvements.
Mr. Cartee stated that the next agenda item is the distribution
Planning Board 3 February 4 , 1986
of the Annual Reports, among which is his. Mr. Cartee stated that if
there are any questions over the next few days with respect to his
report for 1985 , talk to him or give him a call, and he would be glad
to discuss it. Mr. Cartee stated that he would point out that last
year, 1985 , probably the greatest number of building permits for new
homes were issued in the Town than in the last ten years. Mr. Cartee
stated that 70 new homes is quite a large number, adding that, in
looking at the proposed subdivisions under review, 1986 will probably
be a good construction year also.
Chairman May thanked Mr. Cartee for his reports.
DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL REPORTS
The Secretary distributed the following Annual Reports, 1985 , to
each of the Board members present.
1 . 1985 Annual Report of the Town Engineer.
2 . 1985 Annual Report of the Town Highway Superintendent.
3 . 1985 Annual Report of the Town Planner.
4 . Parks and Recreation Ways Annual Report for 1985.
5 . Year End Summary 1985 - Building Inspector.
COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING
1 . Discussion: General
Mr. Lovi stated that he was trying to set aside time at the front
of these meetings to discuss planning matters. Mr. Lovi stated that
there are several matters that we will talk about and one of the
things that he is attempting to do is schedule some other participants
-- resource people -- to come in and speak with the Board about the
comprehensive planning process. Mr. Lovi stated that, to that end,
for the next month ' s meeting, he is speaking with Eugenia Barnaba of
the Cornell Laboratory for Environmental Applications of Remote
Sensing (CLEARS) . Mr. Lovi stated that an article written by Ms.
Barnaba was referred to him by the Town Supervisor and he [Lovi]
contacted her. Mr. Lovi commented that their work is very interesting
and it links up with the base mapping we did last year.
Chairman May wondered if Mr. Lovi were talking about the March
4th Planning Board meeting. Mr. Lovi stated that he will be meeting
with Ms. Barnaba next Friday. Mr. Lovi stated that Susan Beeners and
he and two planning assistants have in mind, as part of their work
this year, a natural resources inventory, and, through Remote Sensing
and their voluminous data, it can be turned to local land use
applications. Mr. Lovi stated that on the basis of that discussion,
he was going to ask her to speak to the Planning Board next month,
adding that it should be very useful for all of us .
2 . Discussion: Town of Cazenovia Land Use Guide
Moving along, Mr. Lovi stated that the Town of Cazenovia in the
past four years has been working with their Community Resources
Planning Board 4 February 4 , 1986
Project. Mr. Lovi stated that he sent for their guide -- "The Town of
Cazenovia Land Use Guide" -- which turns out to be a very complete
statement of aspects of the Town of Cazenovia in which the Advisory
Council and the Planning Board defined the natural character of
Cazenovia -- both as to land use and neighborhood character, and which
is something that serves as a guide to the Planning Board and the
Zoning Board of Appeals in some of their long term land use decisions.
Mr. Lovi stated that this Guide was brought to his attention at the
Land Use Conference he attended last month and, he thought, would be
of interest to this Planning Board as a guide for things the Planning
Board can do. Mr. Lovi pointed out that there is no requirement for
the filing of a Comprehensive Plan in New York State as there is in
some other states, but this sort of thing adds to what is in place.
Mr. Lovi stated that he thought the Board members should look at this
guide as a good example of what the Town of Ithaca can put together.
Mr. Lovi stated that that leads into a memorandum received from
Supervisor Desch concerning a Comprehensive Plan Policy Statement and
requesting to meet with the Board on February 18th to discuss same.
Chairman May stated that he thought that what the Board will have
is an updating discussion this month. Chairman May stated that we
need to see where we are on this, adding that we have talked about
this a lot, and further adding that we definitely need to be brought
back up to speed. Chairman May stated that that February [18th]
meeting will be a workshop meeting, so we do not want to schedule
something else.
Mr. Lovi spoke about his thoughts on the scheduling of meetings
in such a manner that public hearings and new subdivision or site plan
requests would only be heard at the first meeting of the month , with
the second meeting being devoted to planning matters. Chairman May
stated that, hopefully, by doing it this way, we can do some of the
things we have wanted to do.
3 . Discussion: "Updating the Master Plan"
Moving right along, Mr. Lovi stated that another item which each
of the Board members received was a copy of an article from the
January-February 1986 New York Planning Federation Planning News,
entitled "Updating the Master Plan - Requirements & How to do it
Professionally" . Mrs. Langhans commented that all the Planning Board
members get that magazine. Mr. Lovi stated that much of this is very
useful in terms of the conduct of public hearings and being able to
build a public consensus behind what would be called a master plan --
whatever form it may take. Mr. Lovi suggested that this material
should be re-read over the next couple of weeks, adding that we can
talk about it later this month.
4 . Discussion: Proposed Amendments to SEQRA
Mr. Lovi stated that the third item about which he would like to
speak is the proposal for the amending of the State Environmental
Quality Review Act (SEQRA) . Chairman May asked Mr. Lovi if he had
received a copy of the proposed changes, to which Mr. Lovi responded,
Planning Board 5 February 4 , 1986
yes, adding that they were the principal subject of the Conference he
attended last week. Mr. Lovi pointed out that, as the Board members
know, the New York State Department of Environmental. Conservation has
been obliged to promulgate regulations [6 NYCRR 6171 with respect to
the Act since 1976 [Article B , Environmental Conservation Law] . Mr.
Lovi, commenting that this is the first rewriting of those regulations
which have been out for some time, stated that it was appropriate for
DEC to take advantage of Court interpretations and involvement and the
Department has been incorporating many of the decisions as they work
their way up into the language of the regulations . Mr. Lovi stated
that, rather than spending a lot of time on this, he would like to run
through some highlights of the proposed changes. Mr. Lovi' s review of
highlights follows:
1. The way in which we have usually reviewed projects is
somewhat different from State practice in other municipalities.
We engage in a very thorough review and it involves a great deal
of uncovering areas of environmental concern and then designing
mitigation measures and then those are incorporated into the site
plan and the review process. That sort of negotiating procedure
was not explicitly permitted under the regulations although it
was done. It is now codified in the proposed regulations under a
conditional negative declaration. The problem is that what the
State gives, they take away, and what they are taking away is the
use of the conditional negative declaration for any Type I
action. Most of ours are that and this would be taking away from
areas where we most often use it.
There are two options --
a . Make a finding of a positive declaration when we go through
a SEQR review and then use the Draft EIS timetables laid
out, and, scoping (much more formal) to identify just those
areas that we want to see more of -- for example, drainage.
Thus, rather than indicate a negative declaration
conditioned on appropriate drainage, make a positive
declaration and in scoping say a submission will include the
sort of things you want to see. In this way the net effect
is to give the same information you said in the past, but
packaging it in the DEIS , and so on.
b. To have the applicant withdraw his application after you
have identified all the areas that need to be mitigated,
then, submit a new EAF showing the mitigation, and, then,
make a negative declaration.
This has been discussed very thoroughly at the State level.
That is probably the single most important change.
2 . There is a much improved Long EAF which, once these
regulations take effect later in the year, I would encourage the
Town Board to adopt these new forms for the Town.
Planning Board 6 February 4 , 1986
•. I would also encourage the Planning Board, as part of their
comprehensive review, to look at the Type II list and the Type I
list and consider adding certain actions to the Type II list such
that they are more explicit and to incorporate these changes,
once they become final.
3 . The last change I want you to be aware of is that there has
been a proposed change in the area of critical environmental
areas. The Town of Ithaca was one of the first to have a CEA in
the State with Coy Glen. Under the old regulations the Town
Board was the sole agency under SEQR to establish a CEA. The new
legislation lets other agencies establish this -- for example,
NYS DEC decides you have a wetland in your town so, as a wetland,
which is a CEA, they can do so, and also, so can NYS DOT or other
State agencies. They would have the same regulatory force as if
the Town Board had done it.
Mr. Lovi stated that if there were any comments from the Board
members, they should talk to him or to the Secretary. Chairman May
asked Mr. Lovi if he had ordered additional copies of the proposed
regulations, adding that he had ordered one himself. Mr. Lovi stated
that there are two copies in the office, including the draft Generic
EIS.
Referring to the letter sent out by the SEQR coordinator on this
matter, Jerome W. Jensen, Mrs. Langhans noted that a 90-day public
comment period started on January 15, 1986 . Chairman May pointed out
that either the Board as a whole or the members individually can
comment. Mr. Lovi stated that there is an extended public comment
period through the environmental impact process, adding that they have
to review everyone's comments which is a very involved task and very
thorough. Mr. Lovi stated that he imagined the regulations will be in
final form by the end of the year.
Chairman May thanked Mr. Lovi for his report.
[For the record, the letter referred to from Jerome W. Jensen
follows :
"New York State Department of Environemtnal Conservation
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233--0001
Henry G. Williams, Commissioner
Dear SEQR Handbook User:
The Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) is proposing
to amend 6 NYCRR 617 , the statewide regulations that implement the
State Environmental Quality Review Act ( 'SEQR' ) , Environmental
Conservation Law, Article I. The revisions will address issues raised
by state and local agencies, the public, applicants, and the courts
l` during the last seven years of SEQR implementation. Resolution of
'. these issues will enhance the continued fair and reasonable appliction
of SEQR by all levels of government. The 90-day public comment period
Planning Board 7 February 4 , 1986
will begin on January 15 , 1986 .
Key changes include a new option for formal scoping procedures
which allow applicants and public agencies to agree to what needs to
be included in an environmental impact statement (EIS) , and an option
for placing conditions on negative declarations for certain unlisted
actions. In an effort to make applicatins and processing more
predictable for all parties, significant changes have also been made
in time limits .
The comprehensive amendments also address: supplementing draft
and final EISs; rescission of a negative declaration; and agency
designation of a critical environmental area.
In addition, the Department will include changes affecting:
public notice of negative declarations for unlisted actions; extending
the time period for determinations of significance; and the criteria
for a legally sufficient negative declaration.
DEC will add a number of new definitions and clarify several of
the current definitions. In addition, the Department has revised the
full and short model environmental assessment forms (EAF) and will add
a model visual EAF addendum and a model scoping checklist.
DEC has prepared a generic EIS that presents both the changes and
alternative measures which are being considered. Also, it documents
the arguments which have been made on both sides of the more
controversial points.
Public hearings are being scheduled to gather additional comments
during February and March. Each hearing will be preceded by a
question and answer session beginning approximately one hour before
the hearing.
If you would like a copy of the proposed regulations and the
generic EIS and/or information about the public hearings, please send
your request to:
Air. Jerome Jensen, Division of Regulatory Affairs, Room 514 , 50
Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-0001 .
Sincerely yours,
(sgd. ) Jerome W. Jensen
SEQR Coordinator"]
FIRE SAFETY NOTIFICATION
Since there were a number of people from the public present,
Chairman May read aloud from the Fire Safety Notification Notice to be
read at all public gatherings of more than 20 persons, as required by
the NYS Department of State, Office of Fire Prevention and Control.
Planning Board 8 February 4 , 1986
CONSIDERATION OF REVISIONS TO THE TRAILER PARK AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
The following draft resolution was before the Board.
"DRAFT RESOLUTION: Trailer Park Amendment
Drafted: January 30, 1986 , Peter Lovi
Presented: February 4 , 1986 , Planning Board
WHEREAS:
1 . The Planning Board has recommended an amendment to the Zoning
Ordinance permitting the establishment of trailer parks in the
Town of Ithaca.
2. At its Public Hearing on December 9th the Town Board tabled
consideration of the Local Law to amend the Zoning Ordinance as
it pertains to Mobile Homes .
3 . The Town Board indicated that additional restrictions on
residential occupancy and subdivision of parks were necessary.
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that the Local Law to amend the Zoning
Ordinance as it pertains to Mobile Homes be revised as follows:
1 . To number 36A of Article I , Section 1 be added the following
sentence: 'A mobile home shall be considered a one-family
dwelling for purposes of determining permitted occupancy. '
2 . To Section 3F be added the following sentence: 'No alteration,
amendment, change, or subdivision of a trailer park site plan is
permitted without approval of the Town Board, following Planning
Board site plan review. '
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommends the adoption
of this revised Local Law by the Town Board at its earliest
convenience."
Mr. Lovi reported that the proposed Local Law with respect to
Mobile Homes was considered by the Town Board at its December meeting,
adding that that proposed Local Law embodied the document considered
by the Planning Board. Mr. Lovi stated that, at the December Town
Board meeting, certain questions were raised concerning additional
questions or clarification on residential occupancy and, also, a
clarification of the Subdivision Regulations as they would apply to
mobile home parks. Mr. Lovi stated that he was asked to draft some
changes and the Board has those proposed changes before it. Mr. Lovi
pointed out the change in definition and read aloud, as follows: "A
mobile home shall be considered a one-family dwelling for purposes of
determining permitted occupancy. " Mr. Lovi also read aloud, as
follows: "No alteration, amendment, change, or subdivision of a
trailer park site plan is permitted without approval of the Town
Board, following Planning Board site plan review. " Mr. Lovi stated
that he would ask for a motion on this draft resolution.
Planning Board 9 February 4 , 1986
Chairman May asked if there were any questions or comments which
any of the Board members might like to make to Mr. Lovi. There were
none.
MOTION by Mrs . Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mr. David Klein :
WHEREAS, the Town of Ithaca Planning Board has recommended an
amendment to the Zoning Ordinance permitting the establishment of
trailer parks in the Town of Ithaca, and
WHEREAS, at its Public Hearing on December 9th the Town Board
tabled consideration of the Local Law to amend the Zoning Ordinance as
it pertains to Mobile Homes, and
WHEREAS, the Town Board indicated that additional restrictions on
residential occupancy and subdivision of parks were necessary;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED by said Planning Board that the
proposed Local Law to amend the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to
Mobile Homes be revised as follows:
1 . To number 36A of Article I , Section 1 be added the following
sentence: "A mobile home shall be considered a one-family
dwelling for purposes of determining permitted occupancy."
2 . To Section 3F be added the following sentence: "No alteration,
amendment, change, or subdivision of a trailer park site plan is
permitted without approval of the Town Board, following Planning
Board site plan review. "
AND FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommend and hereby does
recommend the adoption of this revised Local Law by the Town Board.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Grigorov, Klein, Langhans, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
DISCUSSION OF A RESOLUTION IN RE QUICK PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY
DEDICATION.
The following Draft Resolution was before the Board.
"DRAFT RESOLUTION: Recognition of right-of-way contribution for Park
Lane Extension in lieu of open space dedication
for subdivision of lands of Quick.
Drafted: January 30 , 1986 , Peter Lovi, Town Planner.
Presented: February 4, 1986, Planning Board.
WHEREAS :
Planning Board 10 February 4 , 1986
I. Lands owned by Mrs . Barbara Quick at 1564 Slaterville Road,
tax parcel 56-3--26 .2, were dedicated to the Town of Ithaca
as a public right-of-way for the extension of Park Lane.
2. The remaining lands of Mrs . Quick are accessible from this new
road and may in the future be subdivided and developed.
3 . Building lots in any subdivision of Mrs. Quick's property would
be within 1000 feet of a major Town park in Eastern Heights .
4. Additional parkland will not be needed in this area to serve the
expected population given present zoning densities and
demographic projections.
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED:
1. That the Planning Board consider and hereby does consider the
dedication of the Park Lane Extension right-of-way as an
appropriate contribution in lieu of parkland and shall not
require an additional open space dedication when reviewing any
future subdivision of above-referenced lands of Quick.
2 . If these lands are subdivided, the Planning Board may require
that Mrs. Quick or her successor reserve a 60-foot right-of-way
from the end of any mapped street in said subdivision in order to
provide access to the adjacent property at tax parcel 56-3-25,
S laterville Road. "
Mr. Lovi stated that this draft resolution is proposed
recognizing that Mrs. Quick dedicated a right of way on her land for
public purposes in connection with the extension of Park Lane as a
contribution in lieu of future open space dedication.
Chairman May wanted to make sure that he was correct in his
understanding that this land has already been dedicated. Mr. Lovi
stated that Chairman May was correct, adding that the work is in
progress.
Mrs . Langhans wondered how large Mrs. Quick' s property was, with
Mr. Lovi responding, approximately 10 acres.
Town Attorney Barney asked if he might suggest a time limit on
this, commenting that the way he read it, it was a grant in
perpetuity. Town Attorney Barney stated that he would think a time
frame appropriate, say, if subdivided within the next five years -- or
ten years. Chairman May pointed out that the Quicks have dedicated
land to the Town of Ithaca. Town Attorney Barney noted that, by this
proposed resolution, we are saying that that right of way dedication
is "an appropriate contribution in lieu of parkland" and that no
additional open space dedication will be required in the future. Town
Attorney Barney stated that he did not know what "this" Zoning
Ordinance [indicating the present Town of Ithaca Zoning Ordinance]
will require in five years -- in ten years.
Planning Board 11 February 4 , 1986
Mr. Lovi commented that the sense was that Mrs. Quick could have,
essentially, frustrated the need for the Town for putting in that road
had the right of way not been dedicated to the Town. Mr. Lovi stated
that, recognizing what the Town Attorney was saying, what he would
suggest is, if you did put a time limit, is that you make it possible
to have an extension for, say, ten years, and then, another ten years.
Mrs. Grigorov noted that the Eastern Heights Park is a very large
park.
Town Attorney Barney stated that the Quicks are asking for this,
adding that he understood the quid pro quo, and further adding his
concern with the "in perpetuity" aspect of the first paragraph in the
resolution. Town Attorney Barney indicated his feeling that a time
frame should be incorporated into the proposed resolution. Chairman
May, commenting that that could be on the deed, 'stated that his only
problem is that the Town asked the Quicks for this right of way prior
to their having any plans. Town Attorney Barney recalled the
tri-partite agreement involved in this matter and pointed out that
mutual benefit was received.
Mr. Lovi, commenting that it may very well be that there is an
aspect to this having to do with taxes, stated that, perhaps, it would
be appropriate to withdraw the proposed resolution and discuss the
matter with staff and present it next month.
Chairman May declared the proposed resolution withdrawn.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SUBDIVISION AND SITE PLAN
APPROVAL FOR AN 85-UNIT CLUSTERED SUBDIVISION AT 131 HONNESS LANE, TAX
PARCEL 58-2-39 .2 . IVAR JONSON, DEVELOPER.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 8 :25 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr.
Jonson was present, as was Mr. Albern, his Engineer, and Mr. Russler,
his surveyor.
The following material was before the Board.
1 . Drawing entitled, "Final Plat, Grandview Subdivision, Town of
Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York" , Buyer Developer Ivar Jonson,
934 E. Shore Dr. , Ithaca, N.Y. , dated January 24, 1986 , Survey by
R. L. MacDowell Jr. , P.L.S. 35421 , Drawn by R. S. Russler Jr.
2 . Drawing entitled, "Road Profiles, Grandview Subdivision" , dated
January 24 , 1986.
3 . Drawing No. 1 of 2 entitled, "Water & Sewer Plans & Details,
Revised, Grandview Subdivision" , dated January 24 , 1986 , revised
February 2 , 1986.
4. Drawing No. 2 of 2 entitled, "Sewer Profiles, Grandview
Subdivision" , dated January 24 , 1986 , revised February 2 , 1986
(New Drawing) .
Planning Board 12 February 4 , 1986
5 . 5-Page Draft Resolution with respect to Final Subdivision
Approval, drafted by the Town Planner, Peter Lovi, under date of
January 30 , 1986.
6 . 2-Page Draft Resolution with respect to Recommendation of
Restrictive Covenants , drafted by the Town Planner, Peter Lovi,
under date of January 30 , 1986 .
7 . Letter dated January 23 , 1986 , [received January 29 , 19861 from
Mr. Joseph Multari , 1430 Slaterville Road, to Town Supervisor
Noel Desch, reading as follows:
rr
I have recently learned of a problem that has been troubling
me in regard to the housing development that is proposed on the
old Blatchiey property that is directly adjacent to my property
on 1430 Slaterville Rd. on two sides. The problem I am having is
with the proposed new road that is planned to be located between
my property on 1430 Slaterville Rd. and the property to the
southeast of me, 1434 Slaterville Rd.
The road is planned to run through the building lot once
known as 1432 Slaterville Rd. The lot was 84 Ft. wide. The
former owner and the developer have agreed to take 24 Ft. off the
southeast side of lot 1432 and add it to the northwest side of
lot 1434 which the previous owner of lot 1432 still owns. This
arrangement will place the right-of-way and road closer to my
property. The new road will be approximately 17 Ft. from my
property line which is only a few Ft. from the South east end of
my house. It is that end of the house that contains two
bedrooms.
I find it both interesting & shocking that the developer and
owner were concerned about placing a road close to the owner' s
property, however; show little concern in regard to placing a
road in close proximity to my house which was built & located by
the above mentioned owner. As I look around I find it hard to
find a new road placed as close to an existing property or
dwelling elsewhere in the town.
In view of the fact that there are other more practical
locations along Slaterville Rd. for a new road from the
development on property that the developer owns, and is much more
extensive, I respectfully request that you do what you can to
have enforced the buffer requirements as indicated in Town of
Ithaca Subdivision Regulations, Pg. 23 , Section 33 , and in regard
to the proposed new road being located less than 600 Ft. from a
planned rd. from Commonland that the requirement in Town of
Ithaca Subdivision Regulations on Pg. 17 , Par. 7 be strictly
enforced.
As I pointed out in a recent planning board meeting, a
possibility of 1 ,000 trips per day in the area on Slaterville Rd.
between the intersection of Honness Lane Southeast to the
intersection of Pine Tree Rd. exists as the two developments on
both sides of the above area on Slaterville Rd. grow. This would
be in addition to the 8 to 10,000 cars per day that already
exists.
Planning Board 13 February 4 , 1986
There are dangerous conditions on Slaterville Rd. in the
above area that have caused severe injury or death. All measures
should be taken now, and in the future to avoid adding more
potentially dangerous conditions.
If I can be of any assistance or answer any questions in
regard to the above issue please let me know.
X.C. Shirley Raffensperger"
Mr. Jonson appeared before the Board and appended nine large
colored drawings, in three rows of three drawings each, showing three
approaches to the houses , to the bulletin board, stating that these
drawings were examples of what you can do to make them look different.
Mr. Jonson pointed out the use of shutters in some cases; the front
elevation in a Cape Code style; the various back elevation approaches;
the different side elevations. Pointing to the different rows of
drawings, Mr. Jonson commented on use of the same floor plan and noted
the front, back, and side views of the two-storey versions .
Referring to the drawings on the bulletin board, Mrs. Langhans
stated that she thought they all look the same, adding that the
windows are the same; the doors are the same; the colors are
different. Mr. Jonson stated that he is making affordable housing,
adding that, to him, as a builder, they look different. Mr. Jonson
pointed out the use of a pitched roof "here" , a Cape Cod style "here" ,
and appended another large colored drawing for which he described
differences. Mr. Lovi, commenting that there is a similarity of
facade, pointed out that to see the difference one should look at the
lower row of drawings and realize that a "straight-on" view does not
give one quite the effect of a house on a lot. Mr. Lovi commented
that they are built off a common theme, but there is more diversity
than there is, for instance, at Commonland.
Mrs . Langhans commented that the "fronts" look like four units,
and the back looks like two units.
Mr. Jonson stated that on paper, maybe, it looks one way, but
when they are built out there, they will look different. Mr. Jonson
spoke of wood siding and every one going to have a different coloring.
Mr. Janson pointed out that there will be landscaping and stated that
just landscaping alone will make every one look different.
Mrs. Grigorov wondered if Mr. Jonson were planning to use the
fourth type he had displayed, with Mr. Jonson responding, yes, but the
problem is that that one is so expensive while what he was trying to
do was something people can afford -- $69 ,000.00 to $74 ,000 .00 .
Chairman May asked Mr. Jonson if he had anything else he wanted
to say at this time, with Mr. Jonson replying, no.
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to
comment.
Mr. Joseph Multari, 1430 Slaterville Road, spoke from the floor,
Planning Board 14 February 4 , 1986
commented that these houses all appear to be duplexes, and asked if
that were correct, adding that the last he heard there was to be a
mix. Mr. Jonson stated that, yes, there is a mix, adding that there
are to be 15 single family homes. Mr. Jonson stated that it would be
very difficult to bring in 15 single family buildings. Mr. Multari
wondered if "they" were to be on order. Mr. Jonson stated that they
will be on order, adding that some may be on spec.
Mr. Paul Hartman, 132 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor,
stated that he thought we were talking about 57 houses, and asked
where we got 85 units.
Mr. Lovi stated that when the project first came in 53 lots were
proposed which would have been 106 units. Mr. Lovi stated that, to
compare the right numbers , the project is down to 85 units , where
before it was upwards of 100 , thus, the project has been reduced in
its number of units from that originally requested.
A voice stated that that is a unit -- a duplex.
Mr. Lovi stated that, in order to clarify the situation, there
are 85 units proposed, all single family homes, and 70 of these single
family homes will be attached -- they will share a common wall and
will be built on the same lot.
Mr. Edgar E. Bredbenner Jr. , 141 Honness Lane, spoke from the
floor and asked if the duplex lots were to be 100-foot lots, with Mr.
Lovi responding, no, they are bigger. Mr. Lovi explained that there
will be 15 units which will be single family homes, however, all of
the total of 85 units will have restrictive covenants in the deeds
such that there may be no accessory apartments in the future. Mr.
Lovi pointed out that the 15 single family homes on separate lots do
not have blueprints because they are going to be built to suit. Mr.
Lovi noted that the 70 single family homes on 35 lots, with attached
construction, will be built from either one of the three styles you
see here on the bulletin board, or the fourth style you saw.
Mr. Hartman, commenting that if we are talking about affordable
housing, asked why do we build Commonlands, adding that that is an
awful place and this looks like Commonland. Mr. Hartman stated that
he thought they were going to be beautiful , but these are not
beautiful.
Mr. Albert George, 119 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and
asked what the exceptions were that were being made here, adding that
he was not at the other meetings , and further asking what is basically
allowed under the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Lovi stated that there are no exceptions to the Zoning
Ordinance being made in this develoment; this is a clustered housing
development. Mr. Lovi offered to explain the manner by which the 85
units was arrived at, and stated that, first, a conventional
subdivision plan is presented which meets the requirements of the
ordinance. Mr. Lovi pointed out that the Town Zoning ordinance
Planning Board 15 February 4 , 1986
permits one and two family homes to be constructed on every
legal-sized building lot. Mr. Lovi stated that the developer, on the
basis of multiplying the number of lots by two was able to build in
excess of 85 units, and, after a series of public hearings , the
project has been refined to the 85 units that the Planning Board could
be comfortable with. Mr. Lovi, commenting that he would clarify what
is meant by "cluster" for Mr. George and for the other members of the
public, stated that the cluster provision of State law gives a
Planning Board the authority, when a Town Board has delegated that
authority to it, to modify the application of the zoning ordinance in
order that there is not a higher density of units, but to allow them
to be on smaller lots or attached. Mr. Lovi stated that all this is
is zero lot line configuration.
Mr. Lovi pointed out that 50 lots could have a house plus a
rental apartment in the basement, however, the Town Board put a
limitation in the cluster regulations and that limitation requires
that there be no more than 3.5 units per gross acre in any cluster
subdivision. Mr. Lovi pointed out that, in fact, this subdivision has
less than 3.5 units per gross acre, adding that the parcel involved
here is is excess of 30 acres in total and for the 85 units there is
an average of over 16 ,000 square feet per dwelling unit just like a
single family house with no accessory apartment on a 15 ,000 square
foot lot in keeping with the zoning ordinance.
Mr. George stated that Commonland, too, meets the requirements,
but what is built there is a travesty. Mr. George stated that the
neighbors do not want that.
Mr. Lovi, commenting that Mr. George had indicated a good
question, stated that one of the differences between this development
and Commonland, although they are both cluster, is that in Commonland
there are parts of the project which are very dense and parts which
are very open. Mr. Lovi pointed out that in Mr. Jonson ' s project it
is much more like a conventional subdivision because the average
density across the project is very similar, adding that the proportion
should look more like a conventional subdivision and, even though it
looks, to some eyes, as an apartment style, there is a qualitative
difference with the design. Mr. Lovi commented that the subdivision
review, with the comments on the design, and the sense of qualitites
of buildings, and the restrictive covenants in the deeds, is done in
order to insure that the performance characteristics of the
subdivision are carried through.
Mr. Klein stated that he felt it a noble endeavor to strive for
affordable housing, both commendable and worthwhile, however, what he
was seeing was a rather weak attempt at providing some variety. Mr.
Klein commented on the roof gables being all the same way and stated
that the presentation was a bunch of quad houses masquerading as
single family. Mr. Klein stated that he thought what was just said
about Commonland is a propos. Mr. Klein stated that one thing which
should be noted is that we are seeing a typical elevation -- so high
-- however, the site it is on may be elevated considerably. Mr. Klein
stated that, as he looks at the site map, a lot of the sites run with
Planning Board 16 February 4 , 1986
the land and across the front there appears to be flat land but the
houses are really higher up in the back yard. Mr. Klein noted that
Mr. Janson is staggering the units -- flat in the front and up
substantially in the rear, that is, three to four feet of foundation
wall in the front, so the houses would be way up in the air. Mr.
Klein commented that he was looking at something Mr. Jonson was
putting up as typical -- every lot with the same grading.
Mr. Jonson stated that if Mr. Klein were asking him if there were
to be stair access going up, there will not be anything like that
built. Mr. Jonson stated that the houses will be on slabs -- no
basement. Mr. Jonson stated that he was just showing elevations , not
what it is going to look like on the site. Mr. Jonson stated that the
Board asked him to show the front of a house and he was doing that,
adding that he cannot show the Board what it will look like on the
land. Mr. Jonson stated that the Board members can go up to Lisa Lane
where he built homes and that land goes up and down and the
development is very nice. Mr. Jonson stated that anybody with a
little imagination would realize that. Mr. Jonson spoke of an entry
6" above the ground and how one would walk in -- one step -- and the
same thing with the back. Pointing to the drawings , Mr. Jonson
explained how you follow the land and how "this" [indicating] can go
up and down, so it goes with the land.
Chairman May commented that if they are all on a slab they will
really not go up and down much. Mr. Jonson pointed out two slabs on a
different elevation. Chairman May commented that he understood and
that was okay. Mr. Jonson stated that you can make every one look
different, adding that three years from now every one of these houses
[indicating on the bulletin board] will look different. Mr. Jonson
stated that these are the things you can do, much like getting up in
the morning and putting on a suit and tie -- it is the details that
make the difference.
Mr. Klein stated, however, that the Board asked for individual
layouts for the duplex units. Mr. Lovi disagreed, stating that the
request was for no more than a "typical elevations" and not, say,
"Unit All on "Lot X" .
Mrs . Grigorov commented that if there were changes , Mr. Jonson
would have to come back to the Board. Mr. Jonson commented that for
some of these he would want to come back, adding that he wanted to
work with these designs, however. Mr. Lovi commented that the review
would be similar to Mr. Weisburd and Commonland, where originally
there was a continuous roof line which has been slowly changing to
make other looks.
Mr. Jonson noted that inside "here" [indicating] , for example,
after you walk in there is a kitchen, a family room, a living room
with a fireplace and three bedrooms upstairs, and the cost is
$69 ,000 .00 to $74 ,000. 00 . Mr. Jonson commented that the payment,
right now, would be $500 .00 to $600 .00 per month to live in it, adding
that most people can afford this. Mr. Jonson stated that we need
this; we do not need any more $300 ,000 . 00 houses . Mr. Jonson pointed
Planning Board 17 February 4 , 1985
out that, as to the land , the people own their own ground and they
will take care of it and they will be proud of it.
At this juncture, Mr. Lovi appended the proposed final site plan
on the wall and pointed out the access road off Honness Lane and the
access road on Slaterville Road , also pointing out the cul de sac down
from the Honness Lane access.
Mr. Douglas Armstrong, 121 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that he would have one question to start with, being, what is
the differentiation between side by side duplexes and cluster with two
units side by side. Mr. Lovi responded that, if Mr. Armstrong were
referring to this subdivision, he would note that, in our zoning
ordinance, you are permitted one-family houses and two-family houses,
with the restriction on two--family houses being that the second unit
would be an accessory 50% of the size of the primary unit, unless it
be in the basement, and, if in the basement, it could be the same size
or even larger. Mr. Lovi pointed out that, now, if the person wanted
to take the same two dwelling units and put them side-by-side, the
question is -- how is that different from what Mr. Jonson is
proposing. Mr. Lovi stated that the way it is different is that
cluster housing is an attempt, with projects of a certain size, to
take the number of dwelling units that would be otherwise permitted on
the site and rearrange them, and, rather than requiring them to
conform to a particular style, which is to say a 15,000 square-foot
lot with the units up and down, they may be clustered, attached as in
Commonland in groups of 3 , 4, 5 , or here attached as two -- what we
call semi-detached.
Mr. Bredbenner wondered if there would be separate owners.
Mr. Lovi stated that there are 35 lots on which there are to be
constructed two single family houses, attached -- each one could be
owned by a single person or a single person could own either side.
Mr. Lovi noted that if a different person owns the two homes , we
recommend that a survey map be filed in the County Clerk' s Office
which provides a metes and bounds description of that land owned by
the individual . Commenting that there could be many different
situations, Mr. Lovi offered that a person in his or her 30s could
live in one side and rent the other side and, then, thirty years later
he or she might want to sell.
Town Attorney Barney pointed out that the subdivision here
includes the approving of 35 lots, therefore, any further subdivision
would mean further subdivision review. Town Attorney Barney pointed
out that what we have here is a situation of half of a "house" , and
the land relating to that house, and, by another person owning the
other half -- that is a subdivision.
Mr. Lovi stated that, therefore, he would recommend that for this
subdivision, because we do not know which of the lots would be
occupied by different owners --- if a lot were to be owned by separate
individuals, a survey be prepared showing that lot and that would have
to come back in for subdivision approval which could not be
Planning Board 18 February 4 , 1986
unreasonably withheld.
A chorus of voices from the floor stated that that is doubling
the lots. Mr. Lovi rejoined, no, adding that that is not the way the
density is calculated, and further adding that every dwelling unit may
be occupied by different persons or the same person could own both
units. A lengthy discussion followed among several persons from the
public, Mr. Lovi, and Town Attorney Barney. Among other things, Mr.
Lovi pointed out that in a cluster subdivision the lot requirements
are modified, however, the total number of lots is no more than the
zoning regulations for a particular zone permit.
Mr. Armstrong asked again what the difference is between a
side-by-side as turned down at other meetings and cluster housing
side-by-side. Mr. Lovi, responding that, if he were correct in
assuming that Mr. Armstrong was referring to Mr . Jonson' s request a
while ago in connection with a single lot, stated that when he
appeared for variance that house was proposed for just a standard
single lot. Mr. Lovi noted that Cluster requires a minimum of five
acres, so that single unit was not of a size to permit the application
of Cluster. Mr. Lovi stated that, now, working with a 32-acre site
and with extensive site plan review, we have a side--by-side attached
house with zero lot line which is permitted.
Mr. Armstrong inquired as to what side-by-side is under cluster.
Mr. Armstrong stated that Mr. Lovi talks about cluster housing; Mr.
Lovi says that 85 units are going on to 50 lots but that is not
increasing the density because you could have a house with an
apartment. Mr. Armstrong, commenting that this is the same as the 106
that Mr. Jonson started out with originally, stated, but if you have
85 units on 50 lots there must be some place that has more than one
unit per lot, i.e. , 35 duplexes. Mr. Lovi noted that, as a
conventional subdivision of 50 lots -- were he to come in and say that
this is not cluster, it is a conventional subdivision -- he could come
in any time and build 100 dwelling units .
Mr. George countered that he could not sell those to separate
people.
Mr. Jonson defended the side-by-side duplex, or townhouse, as
housing which is all over the market, and which, he stated, is the
oldest concept in housing known.
Mr. Klein stated that he thought the people have raised some
beautiful confusion here --- and some very valid points. Mr. Klein
stated that what we are really looking at is an 85-lot subdivision ----
15 single family lots basically on the perimeter and duplexes , on
larger lots, in the interior. Mr. Klein commented that, now, the
developer is talking about this being affordable by buying half a
house at $74 ,000 .00 and being different from $150 ,000 .00 and making
two houses. Mr. Klein stated that it would be cumbersome to have a
public hearing every time a lot is subdivided. Mr. Klein stated that
it seemed to him that the plat should show 85 lots.
Planning Board 19 February 4 , 1986
Mr. Lovi stated that he was convinced that Mr. Klein was right,
adding that he would agree with him. Mr. Lovi suggested that if Mr.
Klein were suggesting that the meeting be adjourned and have the
developer redraw the plat and show, for example, the lots, as lot
number such-and-such "a" and such-and-such "b" , or renumber them and
show the lots with attached houses, and if that is the only matter of
the subdivision where there is disagreement, he [Lovil thought it
would be appropriate for final approval to proceed subject to that
map.
Mr. Albern pointed out that that separation is shown on one of
the drawings submitted. Mr. Lovi stated that that was true, however,
you are hearing that it should be shown on the final subdivision plat.
Chairman May, speaking to Town Attorney Barney, asked if he thought
that is necessary to conveying lots. Town Attorney Barney stated that
the plat ought to show actually what is going to be conveyed; it
should show the "a" and "b" . Town Attorney Barney stated that he was
not sure the Planning Board would want to waive the right to see that
plan, adding that the Board is supposed to approve the final plat.
Dr. Nell Mondy, 126 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and asked
what kind of rules and regulations would occur if each person wanted
to build a shed -- a dog house, commenting that in an apartment that
is not likely, and adding, but what are we going to get -- two on
each?
Chairman May stated that that sort of thing should be addressed
in the restrictive covenants being proposed. Mr. Lovi noted that
there is no statement about that in the proposed covenants. Mr. Lovi
pointed out that these lots are very large, and stated that the
restrictive covenants are in re additional dwelling units and certain
plantings or barriers which make a separation are restricted. Mr.
Lovi stated that, as far as accessory buildings go, the usual
regulations apply.
Mr. Hartman wondered if Mr. Lovi, meant that there would be no
fence between units and Mr. Lovi responded, right.
Mr. Charles Dalkert, 105 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
asked where the sewer will go -- into Slaterville Road or Honness
Lane. Utilizing the proposed final site plan on the wall , Mr. Albern
described the sanitary sewers as they go to Slaterville Road. Mr.
Albern pointed out how the water comes from Slaterville Road and
Honness Lane and is looped throughout the site.
Mrs . Barbara Bredbenner, 141 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor
and asked if the sewer system would be within the parcel. Mr. Albern,
commenting that he assumed Mrs . Bredbenner meant the storm sewer
system, stated that the storm sewer system has been detailed in that
there are street ditches, three feet wide by two feet deep, all along
the streets. Mr. Albern pointed out that the arrows are drainage
ditches coming down. Pointing to the drawing, Mr. Albern noted that
the steeper roads "here" and "here" are to be lined with riprap so
that we do not have erosion. Mr. Albern also pointed out a back lot
Planning Board 20 February 4 , 1986
swale "here" and "here" where the slope is fairly steep and noted dams
to be built to slow the water flow. Mr. Albern noted that all arrows
are indicative of swales which are between two and three feet wide.
Mr. Albern pointed out on the drawing how, of all the water,
two--thirds will go down "this" road and one-third will go down "this"
way. Mrs. Bredbenner wondered if there would be any drainage on the
upper part which pitches to the Honness Lane properties. Mr. Albern
indicated a swale on the drawing "here" and noted how the arrows show
the drainage to Honness Lane.
Mr. Multari asked to speak and stated that initially he would
like the Board to note the proposed road that goes onto Slaterville
Road [Towerview Drive] . Mr. Multari stated that he wrote a letter to
the Supervisor and he was told the Board would have a copy which they
may read. Chairman May stated that the Board members did have a copy.
Mr. Multari stated that there is an area northeast where there is to
be a road cut and where two-thirds of the water is going to go by his
bedroom. Mr. Multari stated that, also, someone told him that you
could not put a road there because it would be too close to Honness
Lane. Mr. Multari spoke of there being 790 feet to another property
line and further referred to a distance of approximately 1 ,500 feet.
Mr. Multari wondered how anyone could think that that is too close and
stated that he had difficulty with that. Mr. Multari stated that the
road from Commonland to Pine Tree Road is 790 feet distant and is an
easier road than Honness Lane. Speaking to Mr. Multari, Mr. Albern
stated that the point is not that "this" road [indicating Towerview
Drive] is too close to Honness, interjecting that he was talking about
the intersection, the point is that the two access roads are too
close.
Chairman May noted that the Town staff has reviewed this matter a
great deal and feels that this is the best location. Chairman May
pointed out that the proposed park is there.
Mr. Multari pointed out that a park was turned down up farther
and asked who is going to use this park.
Mr. Armstrong asked, if the lot is being restricted to two
entrances, is the Chair telling him that the road onto Honness Lane
has been approved by the Town Engineer? Continuing, Mr. Armstrong
spoke of Mrs. Blatchley' s subdivision and requirements in regard to a
pond, as they both relate to his property, and stated that, now, they
have a road directly across from that. Mr. Armstrong noted that,
adjacent to that, is Mr. Jonson' s single family house in connection
with which he [Jonson] has found, to his dismay, that the pond is
still there. Mr. Armstrong described equipment getting stuck. Mr.
Armstrong stated that Mrs . Blatchley was supposed to have drainage to
the rear of the property, adding that this was an oral agreement with
Mr. Fabbroni, but this has not been done. Mr. Armstrong spoke of a
spring and stated that the house Mr. Jonson built was supposed to be
on a cellar but, now, it is on a slab. Mr. Armstrong asked how the
Town can accept a road when it is still a pond. Mr. Armstrong stated
that if Mr. Jonson is depending on those two entrances to his
property, the chances are neither one can be acceptable.
Planning Board 21 February 4 , 1986
Chairman May asked Mr. Lovi about the status of the Town Engineer
on this. Mr. Lovi stated that the Town Engineer and he have reviewed
these plans and the history of the Blatchley subdivision. Referring
to a memo from the Town Engineer, Lawrence Fabbroni, to the
Supervisor, Mr. Lovi stated that, first, the access points in this
subdivision were shown at the time eight lots were subdivided by Mrs.
Blatchley three years ago. Mr. Lovi stated that, second, it is their
understanding (Fabbroni and Lovi] , speaking to Mr. Multari ' s question,
that the lot on which the 60-foot right of way is had been
consolidated with another lot. Mr. Lovi stated that they traced back
through the records to 1971 with the records showing Mrs. Blatchley' s
daughter owning both lots and the 60-foot right of way partitioned and
mapped, again, three years ago. Mr. Lovi stated that, third, the pond
was shown on the subdivision plan for Mrs . Blatchley. Mr. Lovi stated
that the pond was shown as being on the land that Mr. Jonson is
presently building upon and it is recorded in the deed such that any
buyer would know that the house is built on a filled pond. Mr. Lovi
commented that he did not believe that the roadway as shown on this
subdivision plan fionson ' s] is in the area that is on the pond. Mr.
Armstrong suggested that Mr. Lovi might better check on that. Mr.
Lovi stated that he could only go on the basis of the plans and survey
we have. Mr. Lovi pointed out that the road would have to be built to
Town specifications and would only be accepted if the Town Engineer
and the Town Highway Superintendent accept it as properly constructed.
Dr. Mondy stated that she has raised that same question with Mr.
Fabbroni, adding that she has interest in this , and further adding
that she has been photographing things. Dr. Mondy described pools and
pools of water, and stated that we should be aware before we start
paying taxes on a road that is on a pond.
Mr. Bruce Turnbull , 118 Pine Tree Road, spoke from the floor and
asked if there were going to be wood stoves in these houses. Mr. Lovi
stated that the proposed restrictive covenants prohibit wood-burning
stoves in any attached dwelling unit.
Town Councilwoman Leary spoke from the floor and asked how many
bedrooms there were to be in each unit, with Mr. Jonson responding,
two or three.
Mr. Turnbull asked what was being talking about --- 85 lots?
Mr. George stated that he wanted it on the record that one-third
of an acre lots are being talked about.
Mr. Lovi, commenting that the paradox is only apparent, stated
that the cluster regulations clearly permit this kind of subdivison
and this issue has been thoroughly discussed. Mr. Lovi noted that the
final plat is to be modified to show an "a" and a "b" lot, however,
none of the other engineering information will be changed.
Speaking to Mr. Lovi, Mr. George asked if that does not hold only
when you have land in common. Mr. George stated that, here, we do not
have that, adding that each person owns half a lot. Mr. George stated
Planning Board 22 February 4 , 1986
that he did not think the regulations allow one lot for five acres and
one lot for one-tenth of an acre. Mr. George stated that Mr. Lovi was
talking about Commonland where land is owned in common.
Mr. Dalkert spoke from the floor and stated that he thought the
Town Attorney said that earlier. Town Attorney Barney stated that he
said it would be a subdivision if there were separate owners. Mr.
Lovi noted that the subdivision regulations, too, do not require
residual land in common.
Mr. George commented that we could have two buildings on ten
acres and the rest all together. Mr. Lovi replied, yes. Chairman May
pointed out that under cluster you could have high-rise buildings,
although the Town has height restrictions, with the same spaces, and
all of the remaining land open space, all permitted by the cluster
regulations . Chairman May stated that there are all kinds of
opportunities for different development situations under cluster.
Mr. Lovi stated that the question comes up when the term "left in
open space" is used. Mr. Lovi stated that Section 281 of the Town Law
authorizes the Planning Board to modify regulations as to lot and area
requirements -- it does not speak to the necessity of creating
residual open space. Mr. Lovi stated that, at Commonland, it was the
developer' s concept to create open space; this was not Mr. Jonson' s
concept here. Mr. Lovi stated that the Planning Board asked why 3 , 4 ,
5, or 6-plexes were not considered and his [Jonson' s] thought was the
footprint of large attached houses would be out of scale with the
neighborhood, thus, we have 16,000 square feet per unit.
Mr. George stated that he appreciated what Mr. Lovi was saying
and spoke of the sacrificing of larger homes on the outside.
Mr. Armstrong spoke from the floor and commented on Mr. Lovi' s
saying 16 ,000 square feet per unit. Mr. Lovi read from the
Environmental Assessment Form [Part II] which was adopted at the
October 29th Planning Board meeting, as follows:
"Impact on Growth and Character of Community or Neighborhood
17. This project will have no significant adverse impact on the
growth and character of the existing community. This conclusion
is based upon the following facts:
a) The homes will be comparable in size to those in the
existing community. The average living area in adjacent
properties is 1 ,371 square feet of living space per dwelling
unit. The average living area in a home in the proposed
subdivision is roughly 1, 800 square feet.
b) The amount of gross lot area per dwelling unit is comparable
with other clustered subdivisions in the immediate area.
Commonland Community will be developed as 124 units on 45
acres, with an average density of 15 ,808 square feet per
dwelling unit. The proposed subdivision would be developed
with a total of 85 units on 32.2 acres, for an average
density of 16 ,501 square feet per dwelling unit. Both
Planning Board 23 February 4 , 1986
subdivisions are well in excess of the permitted density in
an R15 zone without cluster development, which could be as
high as 7,500 square feet per dwelling unit.
c) A clustered development of duplexes and single-family houses
is more in keeping with the character of the adjacent
community than would a development which used three, four,
five, and six-plexes. For example, the effective density
within the "neighborhoods" at Commonland Community, because
of the use of multi-family buildings , can be as high as
6,700 square feet per dwelling unit. Buildings of this size
and these effective densities, would be out of scale in a
neighborhood where the average density is on the order of
26,660 square feet per dwelling unit. "
Mr. Lovi pointed out that the average density here is not more
than in the neighborhood . Mr. Lovi, commenting on the use of "time
series data" , pointed out that there are two-family houses in the area
and compared those units and the density of those lots , noting that
there is 8 ,000 , 9,000 , 10 ,000 square feet per dwelling unit. Mr. Lovi
stated that it is true that there are properties bordering this
subdivision with larger lots, however, these are different times in
which it is difficult to try to build a house of comparable scale .
Town Councilwoman Raffensperger spoke from the floor and stated
that she had a couple of questions. First, with respect to the
proposed covenants, Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she
noted that the occupancy regulations for unrelated persons has been
changed from what was originally in the EAF, that is, from two to
three. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she would call
that to the attention of the Board. Secondly, Town Councilwoman
Raffensperger pointed out that the cluster regulations say the
Planning Board may require a buffer along roadways, and stated that it
looks like it is not possible for there to be 40 feet on the plan the
way it is designed. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she
would ask if the Board planned to provide for buffering landscaping.
Referring to the covenants, Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated
that, third, she would raise the question as to who will enforce these
covenants, and spoke of problems in Eastern Heights with enforcing
covenants. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger stated that she was
concerned about the enforcement of these covenants. Town Councilwoman
Raffensperger, commenting that she would, finally, speak of proposed
lots numbered 35 and 36 , stated that, as she understands it, there has
been some accommodation made and suggested that that should be looked
at because it is a change in the site plan.
Mr. Dalkert commented that we talked about 60 to 70 thousand
dollars for the duplex. Mr. Jonson commented that a 1,600 square foot
house cannot be built for less than $100 ,000. Speaking to Mr. Lovi,
Mr. Dalkert stated that what he said was very well said, but, in what
he said he sounds like an advocate for Tvar Jonson Construction. Mr.
Dalkert stated that Mr. Lovi talked about adjacent land uses and he
determined there would be no impact. Chairman May stated that that
was not correct -- the Planning Board determined that.
Planning Board 24 February 4 , 1986
A voice stated that there are to be 85 units on 32 acres and
asked how many units will be on these roads that relate to the number
of units on Slaterville Road and Honness Lane. The voice stated that
"you" are, wholesale, changing the character of the neighborhood and
asked if "you" are concerned with the legal aspects, or, are "you"
charged with neighborhood welfare. The voice spoke of Commonland and
Eastwood Commons and stated that another 85 units are being added.
The voice stated that this is fine for the tax base, but for those of
us that are there any one would feel scared by the changing of the
whole value of life in the community.
Town Attorney Barney asked -- do you want to form a consortium of
people to buy this land? Town Attorney Barney commented that
development cannot be stopped, adding that it will occur. Town
Attorney Barney stated that, under our zoning ordinance, under the
present statute, Mr. Jonson could walk in and on a grid pattern could
put up a hundred or so units -- single family plus accessory apartment
-- he could do that on every lot that is 15 ,000 square feet. Town
Attorney Barney pointed out that the Planning Board recognized that
and they go to cluster and the Planning Board says -- wait a minute --
you cannot go to that number -- we are putting a ceiling on the number
of units and, roughly, people can argue where they put the 85 . Town
Attorney Barney stated that he appreciated what was being said,
however, the only way to oppose development is to buy it, but, the
Planning Board cannot do that; they do not have that authority,
however, they can regulate and, under cluster, they can regulate even
more than under a regular subdivision.
Town Councilwoman Leary stated that this plan allows more people
to own their own home and not rent from someone. Town Councilwoman
Leary commented that she has lived where she lives for ten years
because she cannot afford to have a house.
Mr. George noted that with this plan, essentially there are
single dwellings with larger lots and, in the inner area, there would
be smaller lots . Mr. George asked who would own them or would they be
rented. Mr. Jonson stated that he would discourage this as the
builder, adding that he thought the character of the neighborhood
would be better served if two people owned them and more than likely
that is what is going to happen.
Mr. Turnbull noted that what was first raised was design. Mr.
Turnbull stated that he was not pleased; he saw row houses, not
duplexes. Mr. Jonson offered that houses are like people -- like a
photographer --- a little color "here" and you look great -- houses are
the same way and that is what makes them look good and how you site
them on the land. Mr. Jonson commented that in any subdivision, there
are only two models -- all the way across the market -- and that is
the only way they are affordable.
Mr. Multari stated that he just learned that the lot that is
going to be a road -- is going to be a right of way -- and he was not
notified when that was planned. Mr. Lovi offered that usually people
are notified although it is not required. Mr. Multari asked Mr. Lovi
Planning Board 25 February 4 , 1986
to check the July 5 , 1983 Planning Board minutes.
Chairman May closed the Public Hearing at 9:55 p.m.
Mr. Klein stated that he was not satisfied with the presentation.
Mr. Klein stated that he thought the Board was entitled to better
drawings. Mr. Klein pointed out that we have not discussed the
restrictive covenants, adding that there should be something about
accessory structures in there. Mr. Klein referred to the requirements
of the R15 zone, mentioning size, another garage being built -- which
could happen. Mr. Klein stated that he also thought the lots should
be split up and the plan recognized as an 85-lot subdivision.
Chairman May stated that he thought that had been recognized,
adding that the question is , how much can we do tonight .
Mr. Lovi suggested that, in light of the three other public
hearings that we have tonight, and because there are other issues
which obviously will have to be attended to, and we will have to
return to another meeting, certain questions should be considered and
he would ask the Board to look briefly at the proposed restrictive
covenants. The document referred to by Mr. Lovi reads:
"DRAFT RESOLUTION: Ivar Jonson, Recommendation of Restrictive
Covenants
Drafted: January 30 , 1986 , Peter Lovi, Town Planner
Presented: February 4 , 1986 , Planning Board
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED that the Planning Board recommend and hereby
does recommend that the Town Board approve [the] following restrictive
covenants which are to be placed in the deeds of the affected
properties and, where required, summarized with any Certificate of
Occupancy:
1. OCCUPANCY: In order to limit the number of persons who may be
legally permitted to inhabit this clustered subdivision, no
dwelling unit in the Grandview subdivision may be occupied by
more than one 'family' . For the purposes of this regulation , a
' family' is defined as follows:
a. Two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or legal
adoption.
b. No more than three individuals unrelated by blood, marriage,
or legal adoption.
2 . NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS: In order to limit the number of
persons who may be legally permitted to inhabit this subdivision,
no more than one dwelling unit may be constructed on each of the
lots numbered 1 , 3 , 4 , 5, 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 26 , 27 , 28, 37 , 38, 39 , and
40 . In addition, none of the 85 dwelling units constructed in
this subdivision may be later partitioned or enlarged, or
remodeled to create a second dwelling unit therein or appurtenant
thereto. Site plan review by the Planning Board shall be
required for construction involving an exterior change to any
dwelling unit.
3 . FENCES OR BARRIERS IN FRONT YARDS : In order to preserve the
aesthetic qualities of unobstructed front yards and to maintain a
Planning Board 26 February 4 , 1986
continuity of scale with the facades of existing homes in the
neighborhood, no owner or owners of attached dwelling units may
construct, place, or plant any permanent barrier, fence,
hedgerow, or shrubbery which serves to distinguish,
differentiate, or divide the front yards of the attached dwelling
units . This restriction in no way limits owners of attached
dwelling units from landscaping or detailing their properties in
a suitable manner.
4 . TREES: In order to maintain scenic views to the south and west,
owners of properties in the subdivision may not plant any tree,
bush, or shrub whose height will exceed 25 feet within 20 years
from the date of this subdivision approval.
5. HOUSE COLOR: The builder will establish colors which may not be
changed by any owner without written permission of owners of
lands in said subdivision which are within 200 feet of said
owner' s dwelling unit.
6 . MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, AND RECONSTRUCTION: Each owner of any unit
having a common wall shall have the right to enter upon the
premises of the other for the purpose of maintaining, repairing,
constructing, and/or reconstructing, improvements on his own
premises, including landscaping, gardening, and drainage of
surface water.
7 . WOOD BURNING STOVES : No wood-burning stove shall be permitted in
any attached dwelling unit. "
Mr. Lovi stated that, first, to answer Councilwoman
Raffensperger ' s question in re occupancy, he would point out that
point #1 (b) in the original EAF review was , indeed , two -- now, three.
Mr. Lovi stated that the material change was the recent McMinn
decision. Mr. Lovi stated that it was his recommendation that some
pertinent number should be applied to all single family homes and he
believed that three was more defensible than two.
Chairman May stated that it was important for all Planning Board
members to be aware of this recent decision, copies of which the
Secretary had distributed.
Mr. Lovi asked the Board to look, also, at point #3 on page 2 --
"Fences or Barriers in Front Yards". Mr. Lovi explained why that
particular paragraph was there. Moving on, Mr. Lovi read point #4
aloud --- "Trees" -- and explained how that was related to the
elevations of these houses. With respect to points #5 and #6 --
"House Color" , and "Maintenance, Repair, and Reconstruction" -- Mr.
Lovi stated that those were suggested by the developer and builder.
Mr. Lovi noted that point #7 -- "Wood Burning Stoves" -- had already
been mentioned.
Mr. Lovi stated that there are several comments which the Town
Engineer has discussed with the builder' s engineer, adding that most
of the changes have been made, and adding further that they may all
have been made and we just missed them. Mr. Lovi stated that staff
will take that up with the builder's engineer. Mr. Lovi stated that
staff is satisfied with the plans.
Planning Board 27 February 4 , 1986
Mr. Cartee stated that he had some problems with the covenants
and he would really hope that the Town does not have to police the
covenants that are proposed, adding that we do not have the staff or
the time. Mr. Lovi pointed out that the burden for enforcement is
upon the adjacent property owners.
Chairman May asked the Board members what their feelings were on
the covenants, understanding the statement made by the code
enforcement officer, Mr. Cartee. Mr. Klein wondered what the Town
Attorney had to say.
Town Attorney Barney pointed out that we have said that covenants
may be enforced by the Town and/or neighbor or other parties, adding,
however, that he thought it does fall on the Town all too often to
enforce these, and, he thought the Board should recognize that.
Chairman May asked if there were any additional comments. There
were none. Chairman May stated that he thought the Board was heading
for an adjournment and, so, any further direction that the Board can
give the developer is certainly helpful to everyone. Chairman May
suggested that if the members do see other ones , now is the time to
let them know.
Town Attorney Barney stated that he thought it was important for
the developer to know if he has any problems. Mr. Jonson stated that
the only thing he has problems with is his elevations. Mr. Jonson
stated that he did spend a lot of money on his elevations. Mr.
Jonson, asking what is beautiful and what is ugly, stated that he
could have a thousand different faces, and added, let' s be reasonable.
Mr. Jonson stated that, besides that, he had no problem.
Chairman May stated that buffering needed to be talked about.
Mr. Jonson stated that all the homes on a road are more than 40 feet
away. Mr. Janson stated that if it is a matter of trees, he would be
happy to have trees. Mr. Lovi stated that, with respect to buffering
the road by Mr. Multari, the suggestion was made by the Town Engineer
to have the developer put in a buffer along Towerview Drive. Mr. Lovi
stated that Ms. Beeners is designing this and is in consultation with
Mr. Multari.
Mrs . Isobelle Flight, 116 Pine Tree Road, asked permission to ask
one question. Chairman May, noting that the Public Hearing had been
closed, gave Mrs . Flight permission to speak. Mrs . Flight asked, if
she wanted a single family house to her specifications here, could she
put an apartment in it. Chairman May responded, no, adding that that
would not be permitted.
Chairman May asked Mr. Klein if he had any items as to how Mr.
Jonson can develop it. Mr. Klein asked who it was that worked on
"those" building elevations [indicating the rows of drawings on the
bulletin board] . Mr. Jonson responded that Gallagher is his name.
Mr. Klein asked if he were an architect -- a licensed architect, with
Mr. Jonson replying that he believed so. Mr. Jonson offered that a
builder can give you what you want, adding that he has built 200
Planning Board 28 February 4 , 1986
houses in Ithaca , and further adding that he could be believed when he
says that he knows these things. Mr. Janson, also indicating the
drawings on the bulletin board, stated that he colored these up to
give a concept only, adding that a picture is not the real thing. Mr.
Jonson spoke of cedar siding, wood siding, natural-stained colors, and
stated that the whole concept has to go together.
Mrs . Langhans stated that all the windows are the same -- in the
same spot -- all doors are in the same spot.
Mr. Klein noted that Mr. Jonson could have come in, as Town
Attorney Barney said, with a conventional plan and the Planning Board
could have had zero controls, however, it seemed to him to be a
consensus of the Planning Board by allowing Mr. Jonson to proceed with
duplexes, which is what he wants to do, and by bluster, the Planning
Board could show the public what it is going to get.
Mr. Lovi asked, if the developer is going to proceed to get
additional elevations, rather than a full set such as he presented
here tonight, because the design is not going to change, is a full
matrix of nine needed or is the front elevation satisfactory? Mr.
Klein commented that perspective would help.
Mr. Jonson, commenting that he may want to build or he may want
to sell, reiterated that, even if the drawings could be made "better" ,
every lot is different. Mr. Jonson, commenting that there has been a
lot of talk about drawings, stated that he did not know what else he
could do. Mr. Janson spoke of his recent travels to Dallas and
Austin, Texas, where he attended building conferences and how his
concepts are current. Mr. Jonson stated that he could not do 50
different looks, adding that it would be impossible.
Noting that Mr. Jonson has built many houses in the Ithaca area
which were variations on a certain design , Mr. Lovi suggested that Mr.
Janson take pictures and bring them in for the Planning Board and the
public. Mr. Jonson stated that that was a pretty good idea.
MOTION by Mr. Montgomery May:
RESOLVED, that the matter of the Ivar Jonson proposed subdivision
off Honness Lane be and hereby is adjourned to March 4, 1986 , at 8 : 15
p.m. for the purpose of altering the site plan and also any additional
information Mr. Jonson may wish to present as far as elevations are
concerned.
Mr. Lovi stated that he would like to jot down some points , so
that he will know where we are. Mr. Lovi listed items as follows:
1 . A new revised final plat which shows all the existing engineering
as shown on this plat with the addition that all the lots which
will be duplex lots be shown as subdivided and that such
subdivision be in the form of, for example, "Lot 42a" and "Lot
42b" .
Planning Board 29 February 4 , 1986
Chairman May stated that that was okay.
2 . With the addition that any remaining engineering specifications
be done to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
Chairman May stated that that was okay.
3 . An additional restrictive covenant stating something to the
effect that all accessory structures must conform with the
setback requirements of the R15 zoning.
Chairman May stated that a maximum size of accessory buildings
should also be looked at. Town Attorney Barney wondered if there
should be something in, too, about size. Mr. Klein pointed out that
an accessory building could be a garage. Mr. Jonson spoke to the
matter of adding to a garage, or having a garage, and stated that if a
person cannot have a garage it is not fair. Mr. Lovi pointed out that
the concern about a garage has to do with widening the facade of the
house. Discussion followed with respect to a garage being tucked in
someplace. Mr. Jonson allowed as how he had no problem with that if
the Board is talking about the front of the house, but, if a guy has
room in the back of the house, he should be able to do that.
Town Attorney Barney offered that, if you are going to have an
85-lot subdivision, the premise is that the lots that are smaller,
that are going to have a single family home on them, it should say
something about a common wall --- a zero lot line. Town Attorney
Barney pointed out that a common wall may be on the boundary line of
lots "a" and "b" .
Chairman May stated that, also, something should get in there
allowing the buffer along the road -- Towerview Drive -- in re Mr.
Multari , and, all roads.
Mrs . Grigorov SECONDED Mr. May' s MOTION.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye -- May, Grigorov, Klein, Langhans, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of the proposed Grandview
Subdivision duly adjourned at 10 :34 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION OF 327 CODDINGTON
ROAD, TAX PARCEL #53-1-16 , INTO TWO LOTS. PAUL AND VIRGINIA
IACOVELLI, OWNERS.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 10 :35 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Both Mr.
and Mrs. Iacovelli were present, as was their Attorney, Wesley E.
Planning Board 30 February 4 , 1986
McDermott.
For the record, the following documents were before the Board.
1 . A copy of the Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed,
signed, and submitted by Paul Iacovelli under date of December
30 , 1985 [Part I] , describing the project as "Sub-divide lot at
327 Coddington Road" , and as reviewed by the Town Planner, Peter
M. Lovi, under date of January 9 , 1986 [Parts II and III] , as
follows:
"A. Box NO checked.
B. Box NO checked.
C1. --- "No adverse impact expected. "
C2 . -- "Provided that all structures on the land to be subdivided
are used in accordance with the terms of the Zoning
Ordinance, no adverse impact on neighborhood or community
character are expected. "
C3 . -- "No adverse impact expected. "
C4 . "Same as C2 above. "
C5 . -- "None expected or likely. "
C6 . "None expected if the two existing structures on the
parcel to be subdivided are used in conformance with the
terms of the Zoning Ordinance. "
C7 . -- "No change expected. "
Box checked which reads -- "Check this box if you have
determined, based on the information and analysis above and any
supporting documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT
result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND
provide here , and on attachments as necessary, the reasons
supporting this determination: "
1 . "The parcel to be subdivided has 100 feet of frontage, in
accordance with current zoning. "
2. "The depth of the parcel to be subdivided, ±225 feet, is ±75
feet in excess of that required by the Zoning Ordinance . "
3. "There is no expected adverse environmental impact which
would result from the use or development of the subdivided
parcels in accordance with the terms and conditions of the
R15 district. "
4 . "The subdivider should certify, subject to inspection by the
Building Inspector, that the two structures presently are
used and occupied according to the requirements of the R15
district. "
2 . A copy of a Survey Map, entitled "Survey Map No. 327 Coddington
Road, Showing Proposed Division 0.5± Acre Total Lot, Lot 97" ,
Town of Ithaca, Tompkins County, New York, dated August 27, 1985,
Revised December 9 , 1985 , signed and sealed by Clarence W.
Brashear, L.L.S.
3 . A copy of two Draft Resolutions prepared by the Town Planner
under date of January 30 , 1986 -- one with respect to a negative
declaration under SEQR, and the other with respect to approval of
the Subdivision.
Planning Board 31 February 4 , 1986
Attorney McDermott appeared before the Board and stated that he
was representing Mr. and Mrs. Iacovelli in the matter of their request
for subdivison approval . Attorney McDermott recalled that Mr.
Iacovelli had presented a similar request to the Planning Board before
Thanksgiving [October 29 , 1985 , adjourned to November 19 , 19851 .
Attorney McDermott stated that the lot that is being proposed for
subdivision has frontage on Coddington Road, i.e. , 300 feet total.
Attorney McDermott described the parcel under discussion, referring to
the Survey Map before the Board, and noting that the entire parcel
extends back about 225 feet at the southerly side lot line and about
244 feet at the northerly side lot line, with the back lot line being
about 301 feet. Attorney McDermott pointed out that there are
presently four dwelling units on the parcel in two structures per an
existing non-conforming use, one a three-family and one a single
family, with those to be on one of the proposed lots which is to have
about 200 feet of frontage on Coddington Road and about 201 feet at
the back lot line, and which would exceed 39,000 square feet in size.
Attorney McDermott pointed out that if this proposed lot had been
developed in conformance with the R15 regulations, that is 100 feet by
150 feet, the area required for the two units would be 30 ,000 square
feet, however, the area proposed is in excess of 39 ,000 square feet.
Attorney McDermott reiterated that if this particular lot were
developed as two separate lots, permitting a unit on each lot, 15 ,000
square feet would be required per structure for a total of 30 ,000
square feet of land. Attorney McDermott stated that, essentially,
that is what Mr. and Mrs . Iacovelli are proposing. Attorney McDermott
noted, again, that the applicants were here before at which time Town
Attorney Barney properly pointed out, by letter, that the proposed lot
for the two dwelling structures did not have, essentially, two times
100 feet of width at the rear lot line. Attorney McDermott noted that
that has been rectified with the new Survey now before the Board.
Attorney McDermott stated that he had been referring to a letter
written by Town Attorney Barney to the Planning Board, dated November
19 , 1985 , and then passed the letter around for the Board members to
peruse. The letter reads:
"November 19, 1985
To: The Members of the Planning Board of the Town of Ithaca
Re: Proposed Two Lot Subdivision by Paul and Virginia Iocavelli
[sic. ] on Coddington Road
Ladies and Gentlemen:
You have asked our opinion as to whether the proposed subdivision
by Paul and Virginia Iocavelli ( ' Iocavelli ' ) [sic. ] may be legally
accomplished in view of the existence of two principal buildings on
the proposed remaining lot--one building containing three dwelling
units and the other building containing one dwelling unit. In
preparing this memorandum we have assumed that the existence and
occupancy of these buildings represent valid non-conforming uses
(i.e. , were in existence prior to the adoption of the zoning ordinance
of the Town of Ithaca in 1954) . I understand there is some question
as to whether that is true, but for the purposes of this letter we are
Planning Board 32 February 4 , 1986
assuming it to be correct.
We have done a substantial amount of research and have found no
cases in New York or elsewhere directly in point. Thus we are giving
you our best judgment of the potential outcome of any litigation on
this matter but cannot say with any degree of certainty that the
outcome we suggest is substantially more likely than a different
outcome. There simply is not sufficient law to make an informed
opinion.
The operative provisions of the zoning ordinance are sections 54
and 67 .
Section 54 reads as follows:
'Alterations. No non-conforming building or use shall be
extended except as authorized by the Board of Appeals. '
Section 67 reads as follows:
'Reduction of lot area. Whenever a lot upon which stands a
building is changed in size or shape so that the area and yard
requirements of this ordinance are no longer complied with, such
building shall not thereafter be used until it is altered,
reconstructed, or relocated so as to comply with these
O requirements. The provisions of this Section shall not apply
when a portion of a lot is taken for a public purpose. '
Based upon our reading of the statute and the cases it is our
opinion that the subdivision as presently proposed by Iocavelli [sic. ]
would be in violation of the zoning ordinance. A review of the survey
map dated August 27, 1985 discloses that Mr. Iocavelli' s [sic. ]
present lot has approximately 300 feet of frontage along Coddington
Road and approximately 301 .5 feet across the back lot line. However,
when the new lot is removed from the existing lot, it will leave a lot
with approximately 200 feet of frontage on Coddington Road and a back
lot line of 159 .5 feet. On this reduced lot there will be in
existence four units. As the Board is aware multiple dwellings are
not permitted in an R-15 zone. However, two family dwellings (subject
to certain additional requirements) are permitted. If conventional
two family buildings were in place, each of the buildings would
require a lot with a minimum width of 100 feet and a minimum depth of
150 feet. Thus, in conventional construction in conformity with the
ordinance, in order to have four units one would normally have to have
two lots with a total width of 200 feet and depth of 150 feet. Since
the remaining lot suggested by Iocavelli [sic. ] will have a width of
less than 200 feet in the rear, it is our belief that this effectively
renders the existing uses even less in conformity to the zoning
ordinance or, conversely, can be construed as an improper reduction of
the lot area and an extension of the existing non-conforming use.
A more difficult question is presented if the proposed
subdivision is restructured so that the new lot has a width of 100
feet and a depth of 150 feet, and the remaining lot a width of 200
Planning Board 33 February 4 , 1986
feet and depth of 150 feet. At this moment it is impossible to
determine from the existing survey map whether or not such a
subdivision is possible. Since such a proposal is not now before the
Board it is our recommendation that the Board not take any action on
such a proposal until a proper survey map has been prepared showing
all of the dimensions, including the frontage dimension, of the
remaining lot as well as all of the dimensions of the proposed new
lot. If such a proposal were put before the Planning Board, it is
impossible to predict the outcome of a court decision. It is quite
possible that either approval or denial by the Planning Board could be
sustained if subjected to a legal challenge.
We hope the foregoing is of use to you.
Very truly yours,
(sgd. ) John C. Barney"
Town Attorney Barney summarized for the Board members what he had
stated in his letter. Town Attorney Barney noted that there are a
couple of issues in this matter --- the non-conforming issue of the
three unit structure and the single family unit, and, the reduction of
the 300 feet of frontage by reducing the lot size. Town Attorney
Barney noted that, at the previous meeting, the back lot line for the
parcel that was proposed to have the two existing structures on it was
proposed at less than 200 feet, and, now, that has been changed in
this proposed subdivision presented here tonight and, thus, that
problem does not exist. Town Attorney Barney stated that, as to
whether you can reduce a non-conforming use, he would support a
decision either way -- whichever the Planning Board wants -- and added
that in his research he had been unable to find a New York State case
similar in nature, although he had found two cases outside the State,
one in Minnesota and one in another state. Town Attorney Barney
quickly summarized the situations to which the out--of-state Courts
spoke. Town Attorney Barney, commenting that this situation is
somewhat analogous to a non-conforming farm, say of 50 acres, and a
proposed lot therein of 200 square feet, stated that this is very
close to the limit of discretion of the Planning Board to make
decisions.
Continuing, Town Attorney Barney stated that the zoning ordinance
talks in terms of the width of a lot as a minimum of 100 feet for R-15
and, while this survey map shows 100 feet of frontage and 100 feet in
the back, he thought the width is smaller than that permitted because
of the angle of the rectangle. Mr. Lovi commented that the proposed
100 ' x 100 ' lot is a parallelogram. Town Attorney Barney explained
how a parallelogram can be 100 feet at each end and not 100 feet in
the middle. Mr. Lovi fetched a scale and indicated that the lot is
about 94 ' wide at the setback.
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak.
Mr. Tim Faulkner, 334 Coddington Road, spoke from the floor and
Planning Board 34 February 4 , 1985
stated that the neighbors had brought up some points last time about
the amount of people living in that area. Mr. Faulkner stated that it
is a residential area -- an area basically free from students except
for that house there. Mr. Faulkner stated that last year there were
13 people living in the big house and, now, there are 11 , plus three
people in the other house. Mr. Faulkner stated that there was a party
last week; there are problems, and, with another house going in there
-- another apartment -- on that particular lot that they are trying to
subdivide, there will be approximately 20 people living in that
particular area. Mr. Faulkner stated that it is absolutely impossible
for that to happen in a residential area, adding that the Board is
causing a monumental problem there and , as a property owner living
there, he would say the Board is doing an injustice.
Mr. Earl Stanley, 109 Pine View Terrace, spoke from the floor and
stated that there are two houses on a 30 ,000 square foot lot.
Chairman May pointed out that there are two houses on one proposed lot
of 39 ,000 square feet, excluding the lot Mr. Iacovelli wants to
subdivide. Mr. Stanley indicated that he understood, and stated that,
in addition to what Mr. Faulkner had said, he would like the Board to
know that he has called the police about this particularly in the
early spring and early fall. Mr. Stanley stated that he has kids
eight years old and trying to go to sleep and that there is enough
noise coming from that area 200 feet away that they cannot go to
sleep. Mr. Stanley stated that he was not interested in seeing
another apartment house in there, adding that it is a residential area
with single homes.
Ms. Linda Louko, 103 Juniper Drive, spoke from the floor and
stated that this property is off her backyard and that she agreed with
the two gentlemen as to noise and amount of people.
Mr. Philip Proujansky, 333 Coddington Road, spoke from the floor
and stated that he is adjacent to this property. Mr. Proujansky noted
that at the previous meeting the question of non-conforming use was
addressed and the Town Attorney has dealt with that question. Mr.
Proujansky suggested that, rather than a vague thing because there is
not much precedence, it should be up to the municipalities as opposed
to the Courts as to how to deal with it. Mr. Proujansky stated that
he also has young children. Mr. Proujansky recalled that he had also
mentioned, at the previous meeting, the fact that the Iacovellis take
special care in taking care of the property and overseeing the
property. Mr. Proujansky stated that the area is basically single
family and there are problems caused by people in there. Mr.
Proujansky stated that if the meaning of the ordinance is primarily
based on density, then it seemed that somehow splitting off a lot is
going to increase that density. Mr. Proujansky stated that at the
other meeting the Iacovellis were considering moving to that "new"
house and he thought that that would be good, however, he has been
informed that that is, perhaps , not the intention. Mr. Proujansky
spoke of a party and kids crossing his lawn last week and of party
litter every other month . Mr. Proujansky stated that he thought it
will be a difficult situation unless someone is there to control them.
Planning Board 35 February 4 , 1986
Chairman May asked Mr. Iacovelli if he had indicated that he was
going to live in the "new" house. Mr. Iacovelli responded that it is
open, adding that he would like to stick with whatever is legal to put
on that lot.
Attorney McDermott pointed out that, in terms of the area, you
can develop that same frontage 300 feet --- in six units under the
R-15 regulations, adding, however, what is being proposed is that the
new lot would be allowed to have the existing two units on it, and
further adding that that is consistent with the zoning ordinance and
with R15 . Attorney McDermott stated that he did not think the
Iacovellis are proposing any increased density over what is permitted
under the zoning ordinance.
Mr. Lovi stated that the larger proposed lot is a parallelogram
with one side 200 feet and the other side 225 feet and, because of the
oblique angles, the width of the smaller proposed lot is 94 feet. Mr.
Lovi noted that the acreage of the lot is about 7 ,500 square feet in
excess of that required for an R15 lot. Mr. Lovi offered that he
believed the Planning Board under Section 10 of the Subdivision
Regulations has the authority to waive particular requirements of
those regulations where it feels their strict application would cause
unnecessary hardship and the waiver would not sacrifice subdivision
control. Mr. Lovi explained that the block character is beyond the
control of the developer -- the road is curved there -- and, given the
fact that if you measure in lines that are parallel to the road, the
apparent frontage is 100 feet, in other words, what you would see from
the road is a 100-foot lot. Mr. Lovi stated that his recommendation,
both in the draft SEQR resolution and the draft subdivision
resolution, stands.
Mrs . Grigorov wondered if it were possible to bring this into
conformance. Town Attorney Barney, commenting that it would be
difficult, pointed out that you have two structures there unless you
knock down one house and take out one unit.
Town Attorney Barney asked Mr. Lovi to help him locate where the
regulation is that says the Planning Board has the authority to waive
the zoning ordinance, adding that the width of a lot is a zoning
issue. Discussion followed with respect to Section 10 of the
Subdivision Regulations and the Section 16 of the Zoning Ordinance.
Mr. Lovi agreed that the Planning Board could not waive the width of
lot requirement. Town Attorney Barney stated that he saw no way to
redraw this plan to make this a legal lot.
Chairman May wondered about the 300 feet of frontage. Mr. Lovi
noted that the width of the lot was about 280 feet if you drew a
straight line perpendicular to the side yard lines and stated that it
is clear that the total acreage, the individual lot areas, and the
depths are adequate. Chairman May admitted that he was a little bit
confused and asked if he were correct in stating that the road is
curved at that point. Mr. Lovi, utilizing the Survey Map , pointed out
that, if you measure the distance between the property pins along
Coddington Road , you will measure 100 feet and 200 feet, however, this
Planning Board 36 February 4 , 1986
"frontage" of 300 feet is not the same as the "width" of the lot, when
measured perpendicular to the side yard lines. The Secretary
suggested that Section 54 be looked at again. Chairman May wondered
why the Zoning Board of Appeals could not speak to this matter. Town
Attorney Barney responded that, quite frankly, with the proposal drawn
this way, it would take a variance. Further discussion followed with
respect to measuring the widths of parallelogram lots.
MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mrs. Virginia Langhans:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board refer and hereby
does refer the matter of the Paul and Virginia Iacovelli two-lot
subdivision to the Town of Ithaca Zoning Board of Appeals.
By way of discussion, Chairman May suggested that the Zoning
Board should know that the reasons for the Planning Board giving it to
them are that the width of the lot appears deficient and whether
subdivision is an alteration of a non-conforming use.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Grigorov, Klein, Langhans, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of the Iacovelli Subdivision
duly closed at 10 :55 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION OF 1478 MECKLENBURG
ROAD, TAX PARCEL #27-1-24 , INTO TWO LOTS . CARL AND EDNA UPDIKE,
OWNERS; ANNA STULIGLOWA, DEVELOPER.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 10 :57 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Ms.
Stuliglowa was present.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed , signed,
and submitted by Anna K. Stuliglowa, Belcor Realty, [Part I] ,
under date of December 27, 1985 , stating that the
applicant/sponsor is Belcor Realty; the project is a Storage
Facility; the project location is 1478 Mecklenburg Road; the
project description is "Use of former chicken coop building, now
renovated, as storage facilty for cars & boats. " ; project
location shown by map attached; amount of land affected initially
is 4± acres; a Variance has been approved; the land in the
vicinity is residential; no permits required. The SERF was
reviewed by the Town Planner, Peter M. Lovi, [Parts II and III]
under date of January 9, 1986 , as follows:
"PART II.
A. "No 11
Planning Board 37 February 4 , 1986
B . "No. "
Cl. "No adverse impacts expected. "
C2. "No adverse impacts expected. "
C3. "No adverse impacts expected. "
C4 . "For the chicken house on the parcel to be used for the
storage of cars, boats and similar items, a variance from
the Zoning Board of Appeals was required. This variance was
granted on November 20 , 1985 . "
C5. "The terms of the variance limit the number of vehicles or
boats which may be stored on the site to no more than 50 . "
C6 . "None. "
C7 . "No change expected. "
"PART III.
Box checked which sets forth . .that the proposed action WILL
NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND
provide here, and on attachments as necessary, the reasons
supporting this determination. "
"1 . The subdivision meets all the lot, yard and area
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The use to which the subdivided parcel is to be put is
permitted.
3. Any further development of this property beyond the terms of
the use variance should be reviewed by the Planning Board
and the Zoning Board of Appeals.
4 . A property survey of the subdivided property should be
completed by a licensed surveyor and filed in the office of
the County Clerk. "
2. Copy of Survey, entitled "Portion of Lands of Carl R. & Edna M.
Updike-Mecklenburg Road and Sheffield Road-Town of
Ithaca-Tompkins County-New York" , dated November 4 , 1985, signed
and sealed by Kenneth A. Baker, R.L.S. , showing the parcel, 4 . 24
acres, to be subdivided off, a portion of the remaining lands of
Updike, Sheffield Road, Mecklenburg Road, an existing barn, and
the existing "chicken house" which is to be the storage building.
3 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to the SEQR review.
4 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to the Subdivision.
Ms. Stuliglowa appeared before the Board and stated that Belcor
Realty is proposing to purchase this four-acre lot which is proposed
to be subdivided from a parcel which is currently approximately 18
acres in size and located off the Sheffield Road. Ms . Stuliglowa
noted that there is an access way to the proposed parcel of 50.9 feet
from the Mecklenburg Road. Ms. Stuliglowa stated that the proposed
subdivision lot contains two structures -- one which was formerly a
"chicken coop" and which is now referred to as "storage building" ,
and, one which is an old barn, three stories high, very sturdily built
with concrete floors and which is used for the storage of hay and
grain. Ms. Stuliglowa stated that Belcor proposes to use the former
"chicken coop" building as a car and boat storage building. Ms.
Stuliglowa stated that approval by the Town Zoning Board of Appeals of
a use variance for this project has been obtained [November 20 , 19851 ,
Planning Board 38 February 4 , 1986
and they are now taking the final step. Ms. Stuliglowa pointed out
that the proposed parcel contains 4.24 acres and has 384 feet of
frontage on Sheffield Road. Ms. Stuliglowa stated that there is
currently a road access, shown on the Survey map as a 25-foot right of
way, from the Sheffield Road to the building proposed as a storage
building, however, the way the property has been proposed for
subdivision, there is also, as shown on the Survey, a 50 . 9 -foot access
from the Mecklenburg Road. Ms. Stuliglowa commented that they could,
thus, develop a road, should they choose to do so, from the
Mecklenburg Road to the storage facility which would be more direct.
Ms. Stuliglowa stated that, also, given the way the wind blows up
there, there may be less snow in the winter via that. Ms. Stuliglowa
stated that the building itself could house anywhere between 40 and 50
cars.
Chairman May asked Mr. Lovi why the Zoning Board of Appeals did
not address the Short EAF. Mr. Lovi stated that they did address
another SEAF with respect to the use variance.
Ms. Stuliglowa referred to a previous subdivision request, which
the Planning Board had approved [July 16 , 19851 for this same large
parcel, by Mr. George Rhoads who purchased 3.65 acres out of what was
originally 22 acres. Ms. Stuliglowa stated that, at that time, they
had decided that it would be in the interests of Mr. Updike, if he
were to sell other land, to provide access from Mecklenburg Road and,
so, the Rhoads subdivision proposed that 50. 9--foot road into it.
Ms. Stuliglowa stated that Belcor Realty decided to buy the
property, adding that at the time of the first subdivision of the
Updike land, for Rhoads, they recommended and expected that that right
of way would be left so anyone who bought a part of the remaining land
would have access.
Town Attorney Barney admitted that he was confused and asked if
he were correct in saying that what is being subdivided is 18 acres.
Ms. Stuliglowa stated that that was correct, adding that the parcel
was originally 22 acres and Mr. Rhoads bought about 4 acres to the
east. Town Attorney Barney commented that it would appear that the
50.9 feet is pretty much established. Mr. Lovi pointed out that it is
not a road right of way. Town Attorney Barney offered that its width
precludes it being a Town road.
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this matter. No one spoke. Chairman May closed the Public
Hearing at 11 : 10 p.m. , and asked the Board to turn to the matter of
the SEAF. Chairman May stated that his only comment was that it
seemed to him that the Board was approving the use and not really the
subdivision.
MOTION by Mrs. Carolyn Grigorov, seconded by Mrs. Virginia
Langhans:
WHEREAS:
Planning Board 39 February 4 , 1986
1 . This project is a 2-lot subdivision of lands in an Agricultural
district at 1478 Mecklenburg Road. This is an Unlisted action
for which a Short Environmental Assessment Form has been
completed and reviewed at a Public Hearing on February 4, 1986 .
2. A recommendation of a negative determination has been made by the
Town Planner.
3 _ There are no affected agencies which should be notified of this
determination.
THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED:
1 . That the Planning Board shall act and hereby does act as the Lead
Agency for the environmental review of this project .
2 . That this project is determined to have no significant impact on
the environment and a negative declaration of environmental
significance shall be and hereby is made.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Grigorov, Klein, Langhans, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May asked that the Board now turn to the matter of the
proposed subdivision of the property.
Mr. Lovi pointed out that, unfortunately, the copies of the
Survey Map which Ms. Stuliglowa had submitted and which had been
distributed to the Board members were on 8h" by 11" paper, but it
appears that it should have been copied on 14" paper, so some of it is
missing. Mr. Lovi noted that the Draft Resolution requires a proper
survey. Ms. Stuliglowa apologized, commenting that she had noticed
that after she had submitted the material . Ms. Stuliglowa stated that
they did have a survey done and it is 14" long.
MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
WHEREAS:
1 . The Planning Board has reviewed a Short Environmental Assessment
Form for the proposed Belcor Realty Subdivision of 4. 24 acres,
being a portion of Town of Ithaca Tax Parcel No. 6--27-1-24,
located at 1478 Mecklenburg Road, and has made a determination of
negative environmental significance.
2 . The Planning Board has reviewed said subdivision at a Public
Hearing on February 4 , 1986 .
THEREFORE IT IS RESOLVED:
Planning Board 40 February 4 , 1985
1 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the following
requirements for Preliminary Subdivision Approval, having
determined that such waiver will result in neither a significant
alteration of the purpose of subdivision control nor the policies
enunciated or implied by the Town Board.
a) Four dark-line prints of the proposed plat.
b) Contour intervals, to USGS datum.
c) Cultural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision.
d) Direction of flow of all water courses entering or abutting
the subdivision.
e) Location and description of all section line corners and
government survey monuments.
f) Addresses of all owners abutting the subdivision.
g) Natural features within and immediately adjacent to the
proposed subdivision.
h ) Vicinity map.
i) Border lines bounding the sheet, one inch from the left edge
and one half inch from each of the other edges .
2 _ That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Preliminary
Subdivision Approval for this subdivision as presented and
described on a Survey Map entitled "Portion of Lands of Carl R. &
Edna M. Updike-Mecklenburg Road and Sheffield Road-Town of
Ithaca-Tompkins County-New York", dated November 4 , 1985, signed
and sealed by Kenneth A. Baker, R.L.S. , showing the parcel, 4 . 24
acres, to be subdivided off, a portion of the remaining lands of
Updike, Sheffield Road, Mecklenburg Road, an existing barn, and
the existing "chicken house" which is to be the storage building.
3 . That the Planning Board waive and hereby does waive the
requirements for Final Subdivision Approval.
4 . That the Planning Board grant and hereby does grant Final
Subdivision Approval.
5 . That the Chairman of the Planning Board is hereby authorized to
endorse the plat.
6 . That no building permit shall be issued for new construction on
this property until a copy of the above-referenced survey map has
been filed in the office of the County Clerk and the $27.00 final
subdivision fee has been paid to the Building Inspector.
7 . That a copy of this resolution shall be immediately delivered to
the Town Clerk for distribution to the Town Board.
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Grigorov, Klein, Langhans, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Planning Board 41 February 4 , 1986
Chairman May declared the matter of the Belcor Realty two-lot
subdivision duly closed at 11 :20 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION OF 119 HONNESS LANE,
TAX PARCEL #58-2-39.12 , INTO TWO LOTS AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS THAT A VARIANCE BE GRANTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 280-a
OF TOWN LAW TO PERMIT DEVELOPMENT OF A LOT NOT FRONTING ON A PUBLIC
STREET. MUHAMMAD AND KHURSHID RAZZAQ, OWNERS.
Chairman May declared the Public Hearing in the above-noted
matter duly opened at 11 :22 p.m. and read aloud from the Notice of
Public Hearings as posted and published and as noted above. Mr.
Razzaq was present.
The following documents were before the Board.
1 . Copy of Short Environmental Assessment Form as completed, signed,
and submitted by Muhammad A. Razzaq and Khurshid B. Razzaq, under
date of December 17, 1985 , (PART I] and showing the
Applicant/Sponsor (Joint) as Muhammad A. Razzaq and Khurshid B.
Razzaq; the Project Name as 2 Lots Sub-Division; the Project
Location as Town of Ithaca; the Proposed Location as New; the
Project described as Sub-division of Lot #1 as shown on the final
sub-division Plot for the land of Blatchley; the Project Site as
119 Honness Lane; the Amount of Land affected initially and
ultimately as 0.88 acres; the Proposed Action as complying with
existing zoning; the Present Land Use in the Vicinity as
residential; the Action not involving permit/approval, or
funding, now or ultimately, from any other governmental agency
(Federal , State or Local) ; no aspect of the action having a
currently valid permit or approval; and the proposed action will
not result in the need for existing permit/approval modification.
The SEAF was reviewed by the Town Planner, Peter M. Lovi, under
date of January 9 , 1986 (PARTS II and III] , as follows:
"PART II.
A "No. "
B . "No. "
C1. "No adverse impacts expected. "
C2 . "Project is for residential use in conformance with
prevailing community character. No other adverse impacts
expected. "
C3. "No adverse impacts expected. "
C4 . "This parcel would meet all requirements of the Town Zoning
Ordinance and Subdivision Regulations with the exception
that the property would not front on a public street A
waiver of this requirement by the Zoning Board of Appeals
pursuant to Section 280-a of Town Law would be required. A
waiver of the 150 ' depth requirement is needed. "
C5 . "None. "
C6 . "None. "
C7 . "No change expected. "
PART III.
Box checked which sets forth ". . .that the proposed action WILL
NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND
Planning Board 42 February 4 , 1986
provide here, and on attachments as necessary, the reasons
supporting this determination. "
"1 . The parcel to be subdivided will be 119. 66 feet wide.
2 . The parcel to be subdivided will be at least 15 ,000 square
feet in area.
3. A survey map prepared by a licensed surveyor will give the
exact dimensions and boundaries of the subdivided parcel.
4 . Sufficient access is available to the property and will be
maintained by a properly recorded agreement in the deeds to
all affected properties of Razzaq.
5 . The acreage and overall dimensions of all resubdivided lots
meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance.
6 . The property to be subdivided will be used in accordance
with the uses permitted in an R 15 district. "
2 . Copy of Map entitled, "Map Showing Lands Of Muhammad & Khurshid
Razzaq" , Honnes [sic. ] Lane, Town of Ithaca, County of Tompkins,
State of New York, dated August 13 , 1985 , drawn and signed by
Milton A. Greene, P.L.S. #42000 , Cortland, N.Y.
3 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to SEQR, prepared by the
Town Planner, Peter Lovi, under date of January 30 , 1986.
4 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to Subdivision Approval,
prepared by the Town Planner, Peter Lovi, under date of January
30 , 1986.
5 . Copy of Draft Resolution with respect to 280-a Variance
Recommendation, prepared by the Town Planner, Peter Lovi, under
date of January 30 , 1986.
Mr. Razzaq appeared before the Board and stated that he bought
these two lots [Town of Ithaca Tax Parcels No. 6-58-2-39. 12 and
6-58-2-39 . 111 , and, referring to the Map before the Board, stated that
Lot #2 [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39. 11] comes at the corner. Mr. Razzaq
stated that there is a road full for his lot. Mr. Razzaq stated that
this Lot #1 , indicating on the Map [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39. 121 was quite
deep and, after making "this" house, indicating the house shown on the
Map [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39 .12] , he has enough room, then, to make
another house and, that, he was requesting.
Chairman May wondered what the line drawn on the Map under the
words "Lot 1" was [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39 . 12] . Mr. Lovi stated that he
had suggested to Mr. Razzaq that he come before the Board with this
sketch. Chairman May stated that he appreciated that, but would ask
-- what is Lot 1 and Lot 2? Mrs. Grigorov asked if there were a
house on Lot 2 . Mr. Razzaq stated that there is no house on Lot 2
[Parcel No. 6-58-2-39. 111 ; the house is on Lot 1 [Parcel No.
6-58-2-39 . 121 . Mr. Lovi explained that the lot proposed for
subdivision into two lots [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39. 12] was a part of the
8-lot subdivision approved for Mrs . Blatchley.
Mr. Razzaq stated that the driveway, shown on Lot 2 as a 20-foot
right of way, is owned by him.
Planning Board 43 February 4 , 1986
Chairman May asked what was being planned for Lot 2 . Mr. Razzaq
stated they were going to build one house there. Chairman May queried
if it was Mr. Razzaq's intention to build three houses, to which Mr.
Razzaq responded, yes.
Mr. Klein asked Mr. Razzaq when he bought these properties , with
Mr. Razzaq replying that it was September 1984 .
Chairman May asked if there were anyone present who wished to
speak to this proposed subdivision.
Mr. Douglas Armstrong, 121 Honness Lane, spoke from the floor and
stated that he was the next door neighbor. Mr. Armstrong stated that
he has talked to Mr. Razzaq about this and he [Armstrong] thought the
map he [Razzaq] is showing the Board is completely accurate and
perfectly legal. Mr. Armstrong stated that there is plenty of land
for this proposal , however, he would question whether Mr. Razzaq does,
indeed, own the road into there. Mr. Armstrong stated that, in his
endeavors to buy this land, he was informed that half of it is owned
by other neighbors. Mr. Razzaq stated that that was not true, adding
that, according to the deed, he is the owner of Lot 1 and Lot 2 and
the driveway. Mr. Razzaq stated that others are using the driveway
illegally.
Mr. Armstrong, commenting that Mr. Blatchley was very good at
selling half of roads, suggested that it would be a good idea to check
on that aspect. Mr. Razzaq stated that he has checked, adding that
his lawyer has written a letter to these other people, and further
adding that the driveway is for the Church only.
Mr. Charles Dalkert, 105 Honness Lane , spoke from the floor and
stated that he was also the next door neighbor, on the other side of
Lot 2 [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39. 11] . Mr. Dalkert stated that it makes
some difference to him who "owns" this driveway as to what kind of
maintenance will be on it if it is to be used as access to the
proposed third house. Mr. Razzaq stated that he will maintain it for
sure, adding that he owns it. Mr. Dalkert stated that he would like
to point out that the person who has been using the driveway which Mr.
Razzaq says he owns, has been doing quite a bit of the maintenance on
it.
Town Attorney Barney asked how far back the proposed line is from
the centerline of Honness Lane. Mr. Lovi stated that it is 150 feet
from the right of way. Mr. Lovi pointed out that the depth of the
"back lot" is shy of 150 feet, but it is 119 .66 feet wide.
Chairman May stated that he thought there was inadequate access
to the proposed lot for emergency vehicles, commenting, if there were
only something down "here" [indicating] on this right of way.
Chairman May offered that if there is a 20-foot right of way the
gravel would probably be about 12 feet. Mr. Lovi suggested that the
surveyor appears to be showing how wide the gravel area is. Chairman
May, commenting that that would be fine, stated that, however, there
has to be a conveyance of some sort from Lot 2 to Lot 1 so that there
Planning Board 44 February 4 , 1986
is some access for emergency vehicles.
Mr. Dalkert, commenting that he would lake to express some
concerns with drainage, stated that he would want to make sure that
nothing would happen to "that stream".
Mrs . Langhans pointed out that the Board would need a waiver from
the Zoning Board of Appeals for a lot not fronting on a public street.
Town Councilwoman Raffensperger pointed out that, also, that
proposed lot is not 150 feet deep.
Mr. Dalkert expressed his concern about the possibility of a
two-family house being permitted on a lot which is less than 150 feet
deep, as required.
Town Councilwoman Raffensperger asked if she were correct in her
understanding that there will be a house built on what could be called
Lot "l-b" and that will be a two family house. Mr. Razzaq stated that
that was correct, adding that it will be just as the one they have
built. Town Councilwoman Raffensperger asked, further, if Mr. Razzaq
were going to build a two-family house on Lot 2 , with Mr. Razzaq
indicating that that was his intention. Town Councilwoman
Raffensperger asked if she were correct in saying that Mr. Razzaq does
not live in the house on Lot "l-a" . Mr. Razzaq stated that he did not
live there, adding that, however, he thought you have the best people
in that area there -- a lady and a couple without kids.
Mr. Klein commented that, basically, this proposal just does not
sit right with him. Mr. Klein stated that this was part of a
subdivision; it was bought as a lot from that and, sure, it is 320 '
deep and 119 wide at the back. Mr. Klein stated that he was very
concerned about precedent here, adding that there are a lot of
300-foot-deep lots in the Town and anyone could plunk down a gravel
strip and say that he wants another house on it. Mr. Klein,
commenting that it works on paper, stated that it is contrary to the
Subdivision that Mrs. Blatchley had approved -- by this Board -- and
is the way the land was laid out. Mr. Klein stated that he did not
like the idea of placing a house in the backyard.
Mr. Razzaq stated that when he bought this lot he bought with the
understanding that he could subdivide and build another house on it.
Mr. Razzaq stated that when he was building this house he took
consultation, adding that this lot is quite deep, and further adding
"What can I do with it?" Mr. Klein offered that he , too, has a
300-foot-deep lot and he cannot build in his backyard.
Mr. Razzaq stated that if there were no gravelled road he may not
have had an idea to do this. Mr. Klein stated that he did not think
this is appropriate. Mr. Razzaq stated that he will draw up in the
deed that there be more land from Lot #2 .
Mr. Walter Lawson, Waterloo, New York, spoke from the floor and
stated that he was Mr. Razzaq 's contractor-to-be. Mr. Lawson stated
Planning Board 45 February 4 , 1986
that there is a road that goes back in there, adding that, of course,
it is not a road such as would be acceptable as a Town road, however,
the Church is using it and there is a lot of traffic. Mr. Lawson
stated that, as to fronting on a street, he had heard that, but there
is also other access to that property from the Church and the Church
itself is not fronting on a road -- even off Route 79 . Mr. Lawson
pointed out that the proposed lot is short 3 feet and would have to go
before the Zoning Board anyway, but the road gives him plenty of
access. Mr. Lawson suggested taking a little off Lot #2 . Mr. Lawson
wondered where the concern was for the Church which is not on a road.
Mr. Dalkert stated that that was not true; the Church fronts on
Route 79 .
Indicating the gravel strip on Lot #2 [Parcel No. 6-58-2-39 . 11]
on the Map, Mrs. Langhans asked if "this" will be made into a road.
Mr. Razzaq stated that it is already a road. Mrs. Langhans stated
that she meant a road -- not a right of way. Mr. Razzaq stated that
there are properties there which are open areas and there are no
bushes, so, there is plenty of room to back around. Mrs. Langhans
asked if Mr. Razzaq anticipated improving the gravel drive, with Mr.
Razzaq responding, sure. Mr. Razzaq stated that when building the
second house and the third house the road will be improved and
maintained, adding that he bought only because of this gravelled road.
Town Councilwoman Raffensperger asked how wide Lot #2 is at the
proposed division line shown on Lot #1 . Town Attorney Barney
responded that it was about 115 feet. Mr. Lovi offered the suggestion
that the proposed division line be continued right across through Lot
2 .
Chairman May asked if there were any more comments . There being
none, Chairman May asked if the Board would turn to the SEAF.
Chairman May stated that he had problems, adding that he did not think
the Board had enough information with respect to the gravel road, such
as how wide it really is and who has access to what.
Mrs . Langhans stated that she thought it should go to the Zoning
Board of Appeals first because of the two things which they need to
speak to -- the less than 150 feet of depth and the point about it not
fronting on a public street.
Town Attorney Barney allowed as how he did not know what the
Board has been doing in the past and asked if it has normally been
granting a subdivision which needs to be seen by the Z.B.A. contingent
upon a variance being granted. It was indicated that that sort of
thing has been done. Continuing, Town Attorney Barney stated that he
agreed with Chairman May that the Board needs a better subdivision
map. Town Attorney Barney, commenting that, suppose that map came
back to the Board and the proposed lot were to be 145 feet in depth,
asked if the Board' s inclination would still be negative. Town
Attorney Barney stated that he was wondering, in fairness to the
applicant, if the Board 's feeling is that it is not going to grant
this proposed subdivision. Town Attorney Barney commented that the
Planning Board 46 February 4 , 1986
proposed lot could come back as 145 feet, or, it could come back as
137 feet. Mr. Lovi stated that there is enough acreage and commented
that it boils down to the Board 's inclination, adding that it is true
that this is a sketch plan, however, if Mr. Razzaq does come in with a
different map he should know how the Board feels at this point.
Mrs . Langhans stated that she thought the Board had seen a
similar request for the subdivision of a lot in Renwick Heights. The
Secretary offered that Mrs. Langhans was referring to the Robert
Deming proposal to subdivide his lot on Renwick Heights Drive. Mrs.
Langhans agreed, and noted that that lot had a road on the front and a
road at the back. Mr. Lovi pointed out that the lots proposed by Mr.
Deming did not meet the size requirements . Mrs. Langhans pointed out
that Mr. Razzaq' s proposal is still similar in that it is taking one
lot and putting two houses on it, adding that she , too, was concerned
that everybody could do that. Town Attorney Barney suggested that the
Board should, in fairness, consider denying the application for
subdivision as presented.
MOTION by Mr. David Klein, seconded by Mr. James Baker:
RESOLVED, that the Town of Ithaca Planning Board deny and hereby
does deny the application for the subd ivison of Town of Ithaca Tax
Parcel No. 6-58-2-39. 12 .
There being no further discussion, the Chair called for a vote.
Aye - May, Grigorov, Klein, Langhans, Baker.
Nay - None.
The MOTION was declared to be carried unanimously.
Chairman May declared the matter of the Razzaq application for
subdivision duly closed at 11 :53 p.m.
ADJOURNMENT
Upon Motion, Chairman May declared the February 4 , 1986 meeting
of the Town of Ithaca Planning Board duly closed at 11:55 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy M. Fuller, Secretary,
Town of Ithaca Planning Board.